ENFORCEMENT OF AWARDS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 517, 26 May 1909, Page 11

ENFORCEMENT OF AWARDS.

BREACH OP THE PLASTERERS' AWAED. A, number,of;alleged breaches of award oases were heard, the Inspector of Awards prosecuting. 'No defences were filed in tho majority, of cases,,but Dr. M'Arthur.S.Mvgave leave to defend.! :• ■■■ ' •' • ... ■■•■'. T. Foley and Sons were charged with - a breach of the Plasterers';' Award, in that,, during March and. April,;:they employed four plas : ■terers on suburban,work, to reachj which work a conveyance was' required, and. did pot pay them: for. the time'occupied in. going'to arid from i the work. ';■■/;■, ■...,. ..-' ,V ' 'Mr. Gray, for. defendants, urged that a warning would bo quite sufficient in the present ' 'Hi's Worship thought that some ponalty must be imposed. Defendants might not have been nwaro of the terms of the award/ but it was not fair to employers, who ,corformed to. it, that defendants,' not knowing ' tho award,' should tender on•. a different basis to that which an employer, knowing the award,-would tender. Defendant; would be fined £2.. ■■■■■ Each of the men; W. H. Smith, John Head, Laurence Jacobs, and Chas. J. Harness, would be-fined lbs.' .-'.--■ v;\ ; ; -.: -.■'■■ ...,• ; Mr., 1/evvby. appeared "for. the union, .: ';,' " •■ BAKERS' AWARD.;; . . ' 'H.Denhard.contested ah alleged broach of the Bakers' Award,: in regard -to the payment, of i overtime to three of Ins employees, Peter Crnnford.Geo. Mathieson, and-Thos. Dunn.. After hearing evidence'at length his Worship reserved his decision till Thursday. , Mr. M'brath appeared .for defendant. ■. 1. CARPENTERS' OR BULLDBRS' LABOURERS? ! A "question of. somei interest to builders /.was raised in a case in 'which W. J. Parsons, builder, was charged: (1).-with a breach, of the Building Trades Labourers' Award, in that he employed two carpenters,' A: S. Penling'ton and l£S. Wright (who were-not'members of the Builders' Labourers' Union), when members of the lyiion,, who were equally qualified to do the work, were out of employment, and ready and willing to do the work. The second charge was that defendant employed a .carpenter's 'apprentice, AValter Weaver,' to do building labourer's wdrk, at Bs. per week, in. stead of 18s. per week as:required py the.award. . It appeared that defendant was erecting a. building, at : 'Newtown, and he employed two carpenters and a boy to do certain excavating ivork for several days. The mon were doing pickwork, and the.boy was wheeling the stuff away in a barrow. ; /For the.defence it was urged that the only possible manner.of procedure had been adopted, and,.if judgment was given ngainsj defendant in these cases, it would set aside tho custom in vogue for the past 40 years. .Further, if labourers had been employed to' help the carpenters, the Carpenters' Union would, it was alleged, have been down on defendant for employ- ■ ing labourers to do carpenters' world His Worship reserved his decision to Thursday, remarking that ho would like to consider the questions raised as an important matter of principle was involved. BUTCHERS'AWARD. V Hy. Jns. Rod was fined .£2 for a breach of the Butchers' Award, in that he failed to pay an employee the award ■'■ wago. 'Mr, Brown appeared for defendant.