ARBITRATION COURT. TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

Evening Post, Volume LXVIII, Issue 82, 4 October 1904, Page 6

ARBITRATION COURT. TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

The Arbitration Court resumed its sittings this morning, and considered seamen's and whalf labourers' mattere. Wellington Section of the New Zealand Branch of the Australasian Federated Seamen'e Union v. W. and G. Turnbull and Co. The alleged breach was di&charging & seaman at an outport (Patea) and refusing to pay kirn his passenger fare to the home port, Wellington. Mr. W. T. Young apepared for the union, Mr. W. R. Bymons for respondemts. Mr. Symons admitted the breach. Respondents had been convicted of the same breach before, and it was done by the same master, and on the came 6teamer — the Aotea, now wrecked. A fine of £2 was imposed; respondents were ordered to pay to the discharged seaman his passage money, also expenses. The penalty is to go to the union. Welliagton Wharf Labourers' Union v. Wellington Harbour Board. This alleged breach was heard in conjunction with another relating to the same circumstances — Wellington Wharf Labourers' Union v. Union Steam Ship Company. Mr. D. Mliaren appeared for the union, Mr. G. F. Smith for the respondent Board, Mr. J. b'. Kirby for the respondent company. Mr. MT/aren said the alleged breach was that on 2nd December last the Board employed men at work hi connection with the Warrimoo from 1 p.m. to 7 p.m. without an intervening meal. This was in contravention of the award (clause 16), which he contend<(l meant that men were not to be worked for more than six hours without a meal, "excepting when finishing the work engaged on." He contended that the meaning of this — and a meaning clearly understood by the employers at the conference with the employees in connection with the drawing up of this clause — was that the exception only applied when the whole job was being finished, not when a portion of it was being finished. In this case the work on the Warrimoo was not completed by 7 p.m., but was resumed next day at 7 a.m. Mr. Kirby stated that the mistake arose through the foreman not knowing what the .clause meant. Mr. Smith stated that the award made on 23rd November came into force on Ist December, the breach occurred on 2nd December before the Board's employees had time to fully understand the meaning of the clause, and the union pounced on the Board the day after, though it did not cite till four months afterwards. If the Board was to be punished, the fifteen men employed by the Board, and the eighteen men employed by the company, who accepted the work without protest, should also be punished. The Court pointed out that if the Board wished the employees to be punished, it could cite them. Mr. Smith added that wharf work was unlike all other work" and an officiaj had to decide questions of interpretation of award and bylaws at once— on the particular plank on which lie stood at the time. Mr. Kirby stated that some of the men agreed with the foreman to work on till 7 jj.m. Mr. Smith spoke of an instance where men working late at night, would have liked to have done without their meal hour, in order that they might get fjhrough their work as soon as possible; but the Board, in view of the award, had to insist on thetr observing a meal hour they did not want. Correspondence was put in, and lespondents' represenatives suggested that the union should substitute an application for interpretation for the application for enforcement. The President stated that the case had raised considerable difficulty. The Court, after consideration, proposed to inflict no penalty. The question of the meaning of the clause was, from one poiat of view, an open question; that was to say, looking at it himself, if he had been asked what exactly it meant h© might have made a mistake in mterpreting it— probably due to want of familiarity with the business. What occurred was apparently that the foreman, with nothing to gain, made a mistake in interpreting the clause. That mistake was chared in by the men, or by some of them, at any rate. It led to a discusson, and the work went on at the direction of the foreman and with the concurrence of some of the men. The higher «fficers of the Board and the company understood what the clause meant, the purpose for which it was drawn, and the correct interpretation, but for a short space of time, a single day, this misapprehension remained in the waaadß of the foreman and some of the men. The matter was discussed the following f <Lay, and within two days of the breach a very fair letter was sent by the Secretary of the Board to the Union admitting that the interpretation offered by the Union was correct, and that an unintentional, and he thought he might say, a nominal, breach had been committed. The object of the Union was then attained. The Union had attained its interpretation as far as the Board was concerned, and no doubt it continued to be observed. Some months afterwards, the present application for enforcement was put in. The delay was not explained, but they knew it did take sometimes a considerable time to institute such proceedings by a union. As the men lost nothing and Buffered no harm, and as the point insisted on had been gained, there was not any further occasion for prosecuting in respect of what was evidently a nominal breach. In these circumstances the Court did not think that any penalty should be imposed. No order was made as to costs. Wharf Labourers' Union v. Huddart Parker Co. The alleged breach was tho employment of men last September from 1 p.m. till after 7 p.m., in connection with the bjs. Victoria, without meal hour. Mr. Miurren appeared for the union, Mr. C. W. Jones for respondents. Respondents endeavoured to show an exceptional circumstance, in that the steamer took a list to port as the cargo was being taken out of her, between 5 and 7 p.m. W. F. Healey, tally clerk in the Harbour Board's employ, stated that where a ship could afford r the time, he thought it was actually cheaper for the owners to allow their men a meal hour instead of working rignt through, because the men worked better after having had their meal, and tne total cost of labour would, he thought, bo less than if the men were worked right through. Mr. Jones : I think so, too. (Left sitting.)

The Secretary of the National Dairy Association (Mr. Harkness) has been notified that Government will continue the subsidy towards the freezing of butter for the 1904-05 season at the rate of 2d per box. Last year the subsidy — which it was announced would be discontinued — was art the rate of 3£d per box. Good progress is being made by Mr. Allan Maguire with the work of excavating the site of the new Western Hotel in Willis-street. The hotel will bo four storeys high, and will, it is reported, cost about £25,000. The overhead wires in connection with the electric tramway system were put along Lambton-qaay and Willis-street to day, and also along the Wallace-street to Cuba-street section. A trial run was made with one of the combination tramcan yesterday, but these cars have yet to be passed by the Public Works Department. A start has been made oppoiiite the Government Buildings by the Corporation gang with the excavating of the western side of the thoronghfare. The colonial mails which left Auckland per R.M.S. Sonoma on the 2nd of September via San Francisco, arrived in London on the morning of the Ist inst., due d»te>