ARBITRATION COURT. .

Evening Post, Volume LXVIII, Issue 82, 4 October 1904, Page 2

ARBITRATION COURT. .

The Arbitration Courfc — Mr. Justice Chapman (President) and Messrp. •S. Brown and R. Slater— continued its sittings yesterday afternoon. A £10 FINE. Timber Yard Workers' Union v. Andrew Compton, having,' from 2nd March to 28th March, 1903, employed an enginedriver with second-class certificate in a position requiring a certificated engineer without paying him the minimum wage in the award. The Labour Department, represented by Inspector Aldridge, prosecuted. Respondent appeared in person, and admitted having paid 6s a day, which is below the award rate. The President said that the Court could not treat this case lightly. It might not have been a deliberate breach with an intention of making profit, but i respondent had employed a man at an under-rate, and, in spite of the union's refusal to help him to get a permit, ho went on employing the man at lower than the award rate without troubling to go to the Chairman (of the Conciliation Board) for a permit to work at a lower rate. As to an essertion that the union had offered to settle the case on payment of a sum of money, that may have taken place — they would not go into that — but it amounted to a refusal by the union. The breach of award had been allowed to go on for a year after that. The Court did nob accept the partial excuse that respondent did nothing while the matter was being left to the Court. The Court would not go so far as to add the back wages to the penalty, but woiild impose -a fine of JBIO, with expenses. THE BUTCHERING TRADE. Wellington Master Butchers' Association v. Wellington Operative Butchers' Union, application to amend award. Mr. F. R. Bust appeared for the Association, which he said comprised all the master butchers of Wellington. Mr. A. H. Cooper, for the union, opposed the application. Mr. Bust said amendment was desired as to the holidays. The award had given more than the union asked The Master Butchers' Association was not a party to the award, but ite members individually were. The President stated that amendment of an award could be applied for on the ground that, by some mistake, what the j Court intended to express had not been expressed. In such a case, the Court might make a formal amendment of the award. But if the matter desired to be amended was what the Court intended to put in the award, it could not — even if it had not been asked for by the union at the time of hearing— be amended. The provision for amending the award did not mean that the Court could recast the award irom time to time. Mr. Cooper stated that the union had filed an application for a new award. The President: The character of the amendment is altogether beyond our authority. Mr. Bust did not persevere with the application. i'he next case taken was another brougnt by the Master Butchers' Association against tho Operative Butchers' Union. , ■ Mr. Bust fiaid the cause of this action, brought aa an application for 1 enforcement, was that the union would not join with the employers in filing an application for interpretation, so the application for enforcement was brought in order to obtain an interpretation, and to avoid friction. Mr. Cooper said the only time there was friction was when Mr. Bust was Secretary oi the Operatives' Union, and again when he became Secretary of the Masters' Union Thiß friction cropped up within 24 hours of Mr. Bust being appointed Secretary. The President said the Court could not hear the application, because the Master Butchers' Association was not a party to the award, and because there tVas no specific breach alleged. Mr. Bust r gretted that tho Courf s decision would lead to a continuance of friction. The President pointed out that the union's application for a new award would provide a means of removing friction. The application was dismissed, the Master Butchers' Association to pay the costs of necessary witnesses on the union's side.