COURT OF ARBITRATION.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 461, 20 March 1909, Page 14

COURT OF ARBITRATION.

:■-- •- ■ *> "•, V ■■■■ YESTERDAY'S PROCEEDINGS. !, ; SEVERAL 'IMPORTANT, OASES. , Yesterday was the final day of the-present sittings ■■ of- the' .Court--of 1 .Arbitration, at Wellington. • A FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD. - - ' Application' Was made.'for the" postponement of the hearing of the! compensation case,'- Harry Fisher Versus R. Bond) builder, Niw. Plymouth. ■■' The claim in .this .case is for''£3oo . for .injuries sustained through a 'fall from . a. 1 scaffold .which collapsed. . ;spondpnts are indemnified; by ,tho'_ Ocean, -Ac"ciderit." Assurance Company. ' Claimants . ask that i the ! Court grani the' : compensation in a Jump-,, sum,'.'but the. request' is • resisted [by 'respondent. ; ,:Mr. Menteath, on behalf of respondent, now applied for an adjournment on. the ground .that f)he medical evidence 'could not be completed.' Claimant was represented by Mi*.. Toogood. 'The Court intimated that it would hear the ■> case during tho sittings which will' take place hero in jilay- / . rv. , : " .CHARGE AGAINST A BUILDER. Additional evidence was heard with regard to the charge brought, against Humphries Bros'. of having committed a breach of the preference clause of the Carpenters' .Award. •, _ ~ On behalf of respondents', it was stated that the worker in question hid been highly .recommended' for the special work required |to r .b9 done; .and that he received wages in excess of the minimum. Owing to the absence at Home of Mr. L. Humphries, who, it is stated,- inspected the employment book on behalf of respondent prior to the engagement of the nonunionist, the, Court agreed to postpon'o the further hearing -of '.tho case, until the' May' sittings. ADOPTED CHILDREN AND COMPENSATION.' Decision'-was given with regard to the application ( 'for'. the' apportionment of com:pensation moneys in respect of tho death of Charles Nevis, stevedore, which was the result of injuries received on the wharf. The Shaw, Savill and Albion Company had paid the sum of-.£400 to;the Public Trustee on behalf of the dependents 'of It was held by the Court some- days ago 'that . an adopted daughter was a dependent. Mr. Macdonald, who.appeared on behalf of the Public Trustee, now stated that Mrs. Nevis did not -.wish the' moneys .for investment : in a house property. .She would prefer that the money be apportioned between herself: and her daughter. The Court said that the' : usual practice in such cases was to give the widow, one-third, of-the moneys. It-would make an .order that the widow should .receive;, £133 6s. Bd. -and that ..after;, four ; ignineas, costs :of . Mr. Nielson, counsel -for '• the child, had been, taken-out of the fund, ■ the balance',, should be :held : by othe'Public Trustee' and the capital and- income 'applied as he 1 thought. proper for the benefit and of the infant.

COOKS' AND WAITERS' AWARD. ; Julius Adolphus Lutz,- licensee'of the' Park Hotel, Newtown, was charged with .having employed ono -Jas. Sinclair as porter at less than the award, rate. • . ; y I.' The Inspector of. Awards" ; stated that ~ it would -be -shown that Sinclair, who was engaged" as ' a porter', ' was paid only ,20s.' -per week, instead of 255.. Several times Sinclair, had applied for the proper wages. , : - .Evidence was given:by -B.'-J: Carey,- secretary of the Cooks' and Waiters' Union, -that Sinclair was sent to defendant in response to a request for a porter. ' Sinclair, under.'cross-examination, stated that-defendant, upon engaging, him, told him that he was an all-round man, and that he was not going to get more than 20s. per weeki , For the defendant, Mr. .Levvoy admitted that Sinclair was paid only £1 per week'.until notification was received from the union. Defendant, denied that he asked . for _a porter when he rang up the union. Sinclair was engaged-as a rouseabout. The.Court said that'the work-for which Sinclair was engaged must be either that of day porter, night. porter, or general hand. If it were claimed that ho was a general hand, tho position -was that an employer had no right to engago a general hand unless ho also employed a day or a night porter. It was not suggested in tho present case, that defendant , employed cither a day or a ; night porter. Therefore, Sinclair must bp treated as a day porter. As an action had been brought to rcoover arrears of wages due, a breach only would be recorded, but respondent wofild be ordorod to pay the costs incurred by tho inspector. With regard to the charge against Sinclair of having worked for less than the award rates, a breach only would be recorded. APPLICATION TO EXTEND AWARD. On behalf _ of the Building Trades Labourers' Union, application was made, to add the following parties to-tho award in that'trado l ; — Messrs. Luke and : Co., ironfounders; Cable and .Co. j irorifoimders; D. Robertson md Co., ironfounders: W: Crabtreo and Sons, ironfoundera; Hutchinson' and Campbell, '.ironfounders; — Glendinning, builder; J. C. Wilkinson, Brooklyn; J. Wilkinson, Brooklyn; Hudson Fireproof Wall Co.; — Scott, builder, caro of Messrs. Cable and Co. Mr. Brown, secretary of the union, said it had been asked by individual ' builders-to have iron-masters made parties to the award. Ironfoundors had, in some instances, - taken contracts for the -construction, and erection of iron-frame work on buildings. Several

builders had at first promised to; give cvi- ; dence, but subsequently declined to do so on principle. . Mr. H.-'F. Allen said that, the iron-mastcra failed to seo why .any requisition should bo made to bring them under' the award. ; Engineers luanufactured iron work, but did absolutely lib building. Mr. Brown (the, employers'".representative) pointed out; that the work of building' ironframe work'was special work. The secretary'of the union: But we have, workers wild are specially skilled in: connection with,that.class of work., - Mr.'Brown: The day is coming when most buildings; will be built of nothing but .iron. Tho Court dccided to extend the' award to the employers other than ironmasters. With regard to the application to add the latter, the matter - would bo - postponed until the May sittings' to enable employers to ■ - call evidence. It adopted that oourse upon Mr. Allen giving .'an undertaking that' ironmasters would not pay less than the stipulated -rates if their workers did work governed by the award. . \ !. BUILDER FINED £2. Further evidence was allowed to be called for the defence in the. case against W. J. Parsons; builderwho .was' charged with hav- ; ing employed two non-unionists—F. . Allen Brittpii—when unionists were avail-' able, f ... .. ... . ■. ' • : 'Defendant/ who was represented.by .Mr.; Grenfell,, ; now stated-emphatically that lie' inspected'the. employment book beforo lie' engaged, Britton as well-as before he took Allen on.-■ He saw- tho name-of.no-worker; who was 'competent' to do'tho work requiredto be done. ■' ' ' '' '." '.' '• His' Honour: Do you remember any name you-saw.'ori-.the'list?'.. •' •' Defendant';: There was ' a.; man.'named - Mason!... ;.. ■. ■ His' Honour: Did you make any. inquiries about him.?,"/ ■ . ... -, •Defendant.;'-No;'his name, was frequently on the'book about that time. . •• ■ v '<• Defendant'' subsequently .stated: .that/ he had . never employed- a worker without havingifirstfcohsultcd.the, book-.. _.. i. ■•■ •.... , '. His Honour; You "distinctly, said differently in-previous; evidence. You.;t.h<j.n -stated that ' Britton: was -..engaged.: on .April. 25, and - that •you ..inspected the book-on -the z6th. Now, perhaps;-you find,it/does not-suit. your case, Defendantl 'don't how. I. came..to .said .ihat:;.defendant ;had, that .morning' given .further,.,evidence . which was in direct, conflict with the evidence which he hid' given '.on the previous -day.. Defendant was^recalied.specially on-tho point when the case was heard., He then .swore specifically that' Britton was..-employed on tho mh, and that he inspected the;; book on the /bin. The. majority" of ' tho' Court found it impossible'to believe the evidence' which' had been given -that mor'ning,' and proposed-to; give its 'decision' -on• the evidence, whioli- had: been tendered on tho first day. - The Court,; by a majority-"'decision; found 'that, before, engaging Allen',; 'respondent had examined the employment book, and -concjuded that ,-A»en was the bestvman for.-the' work:. There, was nothing i to' khow < that'.that selection, was not mado m - good;.faith-and-m- the arid-, tlio iinion had failed therefore to. estao •Hah' toy.'breach-vso- far as tho employment-of Allen ; ,was: conecrned;,.. Before.-:, engaging Britton,, respondent had . not. examined- the employment book; The.Court; -was.not- satisfied- that 'Britton; .wa,s more skilled than-the unemployed unionists who wero available.. Respondent: would ;,be ' fined £2, which Vaa to bo paid to the Chief Inspector of.Awards, and '.would - be ordered, to pay the costs;, in-; curredvby the union for fees of-. Court.:. , , >Mr.. :S:;.Brownv(the employers,' representative) •'ilissented from the-judgment said. ;that'Jio -lad "either to believe the; further evidence civen by defendant or, that, defendant that',h'e examined the book as,,ho,.had now sworn. . "The fact that an workpr's name was .'on the book was not sufli cient—-tho' union should do more than that to assist'bmploiers. :