ARBITRATION COURT.

Evening Post, Volume LXX, Issue 83, 5 October 1905, Page 6

ARBITRATION COURT.

TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. The Arbitration Court this morning resumed its consideration of actions for breach of award. Carpenters' Union v. Young and Petley, action for breach of clause of award, which provides — "Except in respect of stair-building, no carpenter or joiner shall bo paid by piece-work, nor shall any builder- or employer sublet his work labour only." The Labour Department (inspector Aldridge) prosecuted, Mr. Field appeared for respondents. Mr. Field was understood to explain that respondents sublet a part of the work to six of their own men (labour only), who did the work themselves. The Court held that the clause. did not prohibit letting of a contract such as this. What it intended to prohibit was piece-work. The action was dismissed, with expense-, to respondents as determined by the Clerk of Awards. Wellington Furniture Trade Union v. Wright, Ranish, and Holroyd. This was an action for alleged breach of award as .egards payment of wages. The Union prosecuted through Mr. Churchward, and Mr. Field for respondent. The respondent firm has, it appears, dwindled down to Rahisli only, who' appeared and gave • evidence. Mr. Field raised a preliminary question of liability. Tre defence wns that respondents were not parties to the award, and that a new firm had taken the place of the firm that committed the breach if there was one. Respondents are not named as a party to the award. They were>members of an association of employers which was a party to ari.'industtial.agreement (unfiled and un- ' .dajed),,a,nd which subsequently became a party to an award based on -the agreement. But more than three months before the award was made, respondents resigned from" the association of employers. The Court- held that in the circumstances respondents wero not a party to the award. No doubt they resigned purposely not to be. Had they been a member of the association when tho award was made they would have been liable. Had they entered into business since the award they would have been liable under section 86. , But Ratiish being in business all the time. and not being named in the award he was not liable. Change in constilu.tion of the firm would not have freed Ranish of liability. Th action was dismissed, -with out-of-pocket expenses to Ranish. In a second action by the Furniture Trade Union, against Wright, Ranish, and Holroyd, Mr. Churchward stated, that he would call evidence to show that respondent's discharged three unionists who 'were 'good 'workers, keeping on a ' non"unioii nian. Respondents brought several men under agreement from Sydney, and deducted their passage money from their wages. There had been a lot of . short pay, 'and payment of arrears as well as fine was asked for. ' (Left sitting.)