ALLEGED BREACH OF AWARD

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 207, 29 May 1936, Page 15

ALLEGED BREACH OF AWARD

Hearing Adjourned UNION SECRETARY DENIED AUDIENCE

An action was brought before Mr. 11. I*. Lawry, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court, yesterday, to recover £2O lor breach of the Wellington Builders', Contractors’ and Labourers’ Award from the \\ inget Concrete Block Company. '1 he information was laid by Mr. L. 11. Meadows, inspector of awards. The company was represented by Mr. E. Turksma, manager. The magistrate adjourned the case until this morning. , , , For the prosecution, Mr. L. G. Goouaere, inspector of awards, submitted that, workers were being paid less than the awaid rate of 1/10 an hour. Mr. C. A. L. Treadwell, who defended, denied that this type ot work came within the award, lie submitted further that the citation had been wrongly made out, and improperly served.

“When a well-known firm, such as the defendant company, is to be cited, it is surely incumbent on the persons responsible for issuing the citation to do so on proper form.' 1 said Mr. Treadwell. "'! here was sufficient misnomer to disentitle the inspector from claiming that the company was a party to the award.” Mr. Meadows said that the citation had been posted by registered letter to the Wmget Tile Company. Wexford Road. The Post Office advised that it bad been received by Mrs. Turksma, at Ngaio. On February 10 witness bad inspected the company's 'premises at Miramar, interviewed Mr. Turksma, and looked at (he wages book. He saw the men employed at manual labour in the manufacture ol concrete blocks. The wages they were receiving were from £l/7/6 to £2/2/- lor a full week's work. Cross-examined, he agreed that no provision was made tinder the award for the employment of youths. He did not know whether this type of work was undertaken by youths throughout the British Em pi re. Mr. P. Butler, who appeared for the union, was denied audience. "These proceedings being solely for the purpose of recovering for a breach of the award, Mr. Butler, being neither plaintiff nor defendant, under no circumstances are you entitled to audience in this court, said the magistrate. Mr. Butler submitted that union representatives hail legal footing in the Arbitration Court, and as the Magistrate's Court was in this case subsidiary to the Arbitration Court, it lay within the jurisdiction of the magistrate to grant him audience. If the ease were taken in appeal to the Arbitration Court, Ito would have a footing there, and it was unreasonable that lie should be excluded from the preliminary inquiry. “Mr. Buller will be disappointed to find, if Hie case is appealed against, and goes to the other court, he will have nothing whatever to do with lite matter,” said Mr. Treadwell.