ARBITRATION COURT

Dominion, Volume 18, Issue 223, 20 June 1925, Page 22

ARBITRATION COURT

AWARD RATIFIED INTERPRETATION QUESTIONS The Arbitration Court, Mr. Justice Frazer (presiding), Mr. W. Scott (employers’ repiesentative, and Mr. If. Hunter (workers’ representative), yesterday ratified the Wellington printeis’ assistants’ (female) industrial award made, in terms of the recommendation. The award will come into force on June 29, and its term is concurrent with the Auckland and Dominion awards, concluding on March 1, 1927. Mr. M. A. Grenfell appeared for the employers and Mr. C. H. Chapman for the union. APPRENTICE CASES. Cederholm and Sons, electricians, were proceeded against lor alleged breach of award. The question was, whether the employer should pay the ' rate for improver provided for by the new award operating from September 1 last, or should pay the rates fixed by the previous award. Linder the old award tlio period of apprenticeship was four years followed by one year’s improveship, and the rate of pay for improvers was Is. 3d. per hour. Under the new award 0 years’ apprenticeship is provided for, fo.lowed by one year’s improveslUp at Is. “id. per hour. The boy 111 the case completed his apprenticeship 111 rebruary, 1921, and worked as an improver until February, 1925, when he left the firm’s employ, being paid Is. 3d. per hour, the rate of the old award. Ihe Department claimed he should have been paid the new rate of Is. 7Ad. from September 1. The decis on of the Lowei Court was that as the apprentice had agreed to serve as an improver at tne rate of the old award he was not entitled to more than the old award rale. His Honour said that even if he had agreed, it was a breach of the aw “ l ’“’ and he was liable as well as the emP 'The employers contested the Department's argument that the higher rate of pay should be claimed foi the fittl year instead of the sixth year as provided in the award. It was stated moreover that the boy in question had tailed to oualify for a license. , n . After a short adjournment the Court gave judgment. It commented upon previous decisions by Mr. Justice Sim, that a contract of apprenticeship was not to be interfered with by any subsequent award or decision of the Court unless for special reasons the Court expressly provided that the new conditions should apply to old apprenticeships. These decisions, however, ceased to become operative immediately the term of apprenticeship was completed. 'lhe Court held therefore that no distinction should be made between filth year workers under the old award and sixth year workers under the new award, and remitted the case to the Magistrate to deal with it further. . Mr. C. Berendscn appeared for the Labour Department, and Mr. W. A. Grenfell for the employers. A local firm of cabinetmakers was proceeded against under the Apprentices Act to secure an interpretation on the question whether the employer was entitled to the proportion of apprenticed under the apprenticeship order according to the total number of men employed in the business, or whether according to the number of men employed in the particular branch of the business in which the boys were apprenticed. After hearing argument judgment was given for defendant on the ground that as the order stands at the present time no distinction is made in the number of branches in which an apprentice may be employed, and the matter is to be referred to" the Apprenticeship Committee for an amendment in the order making it more clear and definite than it is at the present time. . Inspector Mountjoy appeared for the Labour Department and Mr. W. A. Grenfell for the employers. . WATERSIDERS' DISPUTES. Application fop interpretation of the waterside workers’ award was made on the question of payment of oil rate. A dispute arose at Wellington as to whether the men working for the Harbour Board receiving and trucking general cargo from a hatch in which inflammable oils were stowed, but not being worked, or from a hatch in which one gang was discharging inflammable oils, were entitled to the oil rate. At the March sittings of the Court the question was asked, and the Court referred the matter to the National Disputes Committee. The committee arrived at the following decision; “When men employed working cargo in a hatch in which kerosense, naptha, benzine, or motor spirits are also stowed, all men so employed shall be paid the rates specified for handling such special cargo, but only until such time as the special cargo is discharged.’’ The employers contended that this decision did not cover the men handling the cargo on the wharf unless they were engaged in handling the special cargo. Decision was reserved. On the question of payment of the coal transporter grab rate to Lyttelton waters'ders working on s.s. Waikawa in January last, decision was reserved. The Court was asked to interpret the award on the question of payment of traveling time and overtime to Napier watersiders who wore taken from Napier to Waikokapu on a Sunday m motor-cars, stopping at Wairoa, overnight, to work a ship at Waikokapu, Neither the Napiqr F’Cal committee nor the National Committee had been able to come to any decision on the matter. The Court reserved its decision. Mr. W. G. Bennett appeared for the employers and Mr. J. Roberts for the union in each case. CARPENTERS & JOINERS’ AWARD. Mr. Justice Frazer delivered judgment on the application by the Canterbury Carpenters and Joiners’ Union to have the Northern. Taranaki, Wellington, Nelson, Canterbury. Otago, and Southland award amended by granting to the Canterbury Union equal preference with the other unions covered by ihe award. When the award was under consideration the rules of the Canterbury Union did not conform to the conditions under which tho Court grants preference, and preference was according y refused for the time being, but power was reserved to grant the benefits of preference on the union’s rules being amended to comply with the Court’s requirements. The rules had now been amended in certain particulars, and the Court had considered the effect of the amendments. The application for amendment of the award was opposed by the Amalgamated Society of Caroentcrs and Joiners. In the opinion of the Court the amended rules were not framed in conformity with the requirements of the preference clause of ihe award, and the application was refused. The applicant union may apply again, on amending its rules by deleting all provisions that would render a member liable to a total cumulative payment of more than Is. per week, and on deleting all provisions relating to benefit schemes. These schemes may be made the object of a voluntary society of workers. but they could riot be made the subject of compulsory contributions to a union to which preference had been accorded.