NOT SATISFIED.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1431, 4 May 1912, Page 5

NOT SATISFIED.

FURNITURE TIIADR DECISION DISPUTED. The.secretary of tho Wellington Furniture AVorke'rs' Union (.Mr. D. Moriarty) has informed a Dominion reporter that tho union intends to 'appeal to tho Minister against a decision recently given by Dr. M'Arthur, S.M., in a ease in which Charles Goldman, a Wellington upholsterer, was charged with having employed, duiiiig March, 1912, an apprentice named George Styles at tho rate, of 10s. per week, instead of 125., which latter amount is the wage stipulated by the latest award as tho amount to bo paid to apprentices in their second year. At the hearing of the case Mr. Moriarty stated that Styles had 'wen indentured under tho old award, which had been mado in 1906, but which had been superseded by tho award of 1911. The question before the Court was: Are apprentices, who wore indentured prior to the coining into forco of the new award subject to the new award's provisions? In his judgment Dr. IF Arthur said that two eases cited by defendant's counsel (Mr. P. \V. Jackson) compelled him to decide against the union. In giviug judgment in one of the cases cited Mr. Justice Sim had said that the new award was not intended to apply to apprentices who were serving under contracts only made in accordance with the provisions of the first award; it was intended to apply only to apprentices who wore engaged after that award had come into force. And in deciding the other ease the same Judge had said that where a second or later award is mado in connection with' tho same industry, such second or later award is not intended to interfere with_ contracts of apprenticeship duly made in accordance with the provisions of any earlier award. "Under the authority of these two cases," his Worship concluded, "I must give judgment for the defendants."

This case, Mr. Moriarty now says, was taken for the purpose of testing Section G9 of tho Act. In the face of the previous decisions (which were well-known to the union) tho union felt that H must loso the case, but as the decisions did not seem to bo in accordance with tho intention of tho Legislature it, was decided to put the facts before the Court and if the decision was against tho union to appeal to the Minister for Labour to make tho intention of the Legislature more definite. "This decision," continued Mr. Moriarty, "is very far-reaching inasmuch as there is no legal remedy to enforce the provisions of the old award, as, according to statute tho old award is now superseded by tho new, and is no longer in existence." ~. ... ... There is to be a deputation to the Minister at an carlv date to deal with this matter and to lay before him matters arising out of the deliberations of tho recent Furniture Trades' Congress which was held in Dunedin.