LABOUR LAWS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 566, 22 July 1909, Page 2

LABOUR LAWS.

NAPIER CABEB. '" (By, Telciiraph.-Preeß Association.) ■; ■ ■ ' *." ; ' Naplor, July 21. At tho Magistrate's Court to-day, Mr; S. E. McCarthy, ,5.M.,. heard the. oaso of the Inspector of Awards vl : tho Union Steam Ship Company, claim £25 for breach of tho wharf labourers' and .stevedores', award, in that - tbo, defendant;' company employed a wharf labourer named Daniel Casey, president of the Wharf Labourers' Union,- on May 31, to worlrdn tho steamer Waikare, and at; 10 o'clock on tho samo day dismissed him from their, employment because such worker was entitlbd to the boncfiti of the,said award. . . ■ ■■ ■• • , Tho magistrate, in giving judgment, said ho was satisfied from the evidence that Casey had been told to go ashore and not allowed to work because he had demanded an hour for his dinner, but tho matter did not stop there. Casey was subsequently told by another officer to resume work, and did .so. That waived his dismissal. It ecemed, however; that, besides Casey, ono or two others' in No. 4' gang had objected to resuming work before tho expiration of tho dinner liour to whidi they were entitled under tho award. It wae here that tho^dismissal took place if there was ono. -It seemed to hie, Worship that tho. men of No, i gang were sent ashore becaueo ono or two'of/them had raised tho question of dinner hour. That was a second diemiosal. Tho breach of award had not been a serious one. The Union Company; woro'not in the habit' of doing what was now alleged against them. Probably tho officers were anxious to get the. ship, away, and were angry when tho men insisted on their full meal hour instead of half an hour. He was of opinion that the-men's request for a full hour, socing they _had worked since six o'clock in. the morning; was a reasonable one, and that it wae made in a reasonable manner, that both sidee had lost their tempers, and that aea result the menof No.- 4 gang, including Casey, woro dismissed sooner thtui they would have been had they not insisted upon a privilege, to which .they were entitled under the award. Judgment was given against the'defendant company for £5, with costs £5 12s. • ■', ■ V In other cases finee were imposed" on the Wairoa, and Mahaka Steam Stop Companv and four wharf labourers in coanoction with the engagement of labour at other thantb* recognised..place. . . ; .'-•;•'.;,.,".'.■!■!