ARBITRATION COURT.

Evening Post, Volume LXXII, Issue 113, 9 November 1906, Page 2

ARBITRATION COURT.

BREACHES OF AWARDS. A LONG LIST. The Arbitration Court (Mr. Justice Chapman, president; Mr. R. Slater, employees' representative ; and Mr. S. Brown, employers' repp-asentative) continued its sittings at the 1 Supreme Court yesterday after the 'Post went to press. Inspectors Aldrfjgc and Hally appeared for the Labour department. INCOMPETENT WORKMEN PERMITS. An enforcement of. the carpenters' award agamst A. 0. Rahd was sought in I respect of employing a journeyman carI penter at less thaji the minimum rate of wages specifisd m the award. Respond«n t admi+itjd the breach, but explained that he jad allowed a lad to remain with him as an improver, conditional on his , getting tt permit from the Carpenters' L° lon *or him to work as an improver. There had been much delay by the union regarding dealing with the application, and it was not until a summons had been issued and respondent had discharged the lad that the union definitely refused the permit. The president reiterated his surprise- that whero there was trouble the masters and men did not go to tho chairman of the board. To prevent any society from keeping men walking the streets, a final tribunal had been set up, in form of the. chairman of the Conciliation Board and a magistrate, to whom any trackranaa could appeal. It was an extraordftary thing that men appar6 i i* o3^ 55611 oi intelligence should be V V X. off with irresponsible statements. It vras sheer stupidity listening to this twaddle; this talk in the- street. A fino of £5 was inflicted on respondent and one of 106 on Davis (tho lad concern«d.) DRIVERS AND PAINTERS. Richard Swaysland, who .committed a breach of tho drivers' award by employing a man named Lamming for £1 5s a week with maintenance, was fined £5 and Lamming ss. Nicol and Stringer, for having broken the award in the painters' and decorators' award in that they caused some of their hands_ to work in excess of the weekly hours limit, without paying them proper rates of overtim*, were fined COACHWORKERS. A breach of tho coachworkers' award Was charged against the Rouse and Hurrell Company in respect of payments made to a youth engaged in construction of tfamcars. There had be;n ambiguity in the award, and an interpretation by the court was sought. Sinco that was obtained, the youth had been paid his full rate. In consideration of these circumstances, Mr. Grenfell (of tho Employers' Association) asked that the courtbe lenient. The president said it was true that an interpretation had been sought, but it was so plain a mutter that the firm should have- bsen able to interpret it without comine to the court. Tbere was no good ground for mitigation. A penalty of £5 would bo inflicted. * A MINIMUM WAGE MATTER AND PREFERENCE. Walter Hdfclett, who worked for less than the minimem wa:o urder the drivers' award, was fined 10s. Hit, employer had been fined for the offence at the previous sitting of tho court. The Evans Bay Timber Company, charged with having employed a nonunionist timber driver without consult ing the books of tho Diivers* Union, set up the defence that the man employed was the best of half a dozen who answered an advertisement. Inspector Aldridge informed the Bench that half a dozen unem- | ployed unionists whose names were on the [ union books- at that date were competent timber carters. The company's reprewntative combated this view; and the case was adjourned to permit of the union bringing evidence in support of its asJohn August, for a breach of the drivers' award in having employed David Wilcon for 27s 6d per week ?nd maintenance, was' fined £5. The employee was ordered to pay a 10s fine. George and Spiers (employers) and George Rot» (employes) were respectively charged with having committed breaches of the farriers' award. They pleaded guilty. Mr. Levvey said that both tho respondents wero new to the business, and as soon as the breach was brought to tho firm's notice they immediately rectified the matter and paid up back wages. Inspector Aldridge confirmed this statement, and said he thought mitigation might bo made. The court acquiesced. The firm was fined £1, and tho conviction of -Rosb was recorded. A breach of the awarS in tho butchering trade was charged against Garrett and Co. Mr. Organ, for respondent, said that the firm when desirous of engaging a lad had searched the employment book, but had failed to notice the names of three or four competent boys who wero on it. The court took the'view that a mitigated penalty of £1 would meet the offence. A breach of the drivers' award was charged against Philip Abraham (employer) and Sidney Hargif aye» (employee). Mr. Levvey, who appeared for Hargreaves, explained that Abraham had j left the colony. Hargreaves (a youth of eighteen years) was employed by Abraham to do odd job;., but lost that employment. Some months afterwards, ho .answered Abraham's advertisement, and I was taken on at let's than the union rate of wages. Sis excuse was that he was hard-up. Penalties of £5 (two) were inflicted on respondent Abraham, and a conviction was recorded against Hargreavwj. APPLICATION ADJOURNED. In respect of a breach alleged against tho Wellington City Corporation in respect of the tramways agreement. Mr. O"shea contended that the caw had been wrongly brought as a breach of an award. The union, ho contended, was taking a wrong, unnecessarily aggressive stand in this matter. An application for an interpretation should have been made. Tho matter stands adjourned. A QUESTION OF OVERTIME. W. G. Tufitin, charged with a breach of tho painters' award, in that ho caused men to work for longer than the stipulated number of weekly hours, pleaded that he had no knowledge of tho breach. He had a gang of men working at Trentham .racecourse under a foreman (one James M'Cullough), and an /arrangement wa» come to between that foreman and tho men to do overtime work at ordinary rates. This was by request of tho men. Respondent had no knowledge of this, and believed that he was paying overtime rates for all extra work done. Tho timesheets put in only showed so many houro per week. Afterwards claims were mad© Against respondent in tho 'Magistrate's Court by sanw of tho men. Tho magistrate's judgment was that overtime payments wero due, but that the men had entered into a wrongful agreement, of which tho master had no knowledge. The court said that, as a matter of principle, it muet in every caso hold an employer liable for tho acts of his foreman, even though ho was unaware of thoso acts. But tho caw was ono for n mitigated penalty. A fino of £1 would meet tho case. The cases of tho men were different; they had banded together to defeat nn award mado for their benefit. They would each bo fined £1. The names of the men fined are : Jas. M'Culloch, Thos. Williams. Antonio Frnntli, Alfred Mcsnengcr, Arthur Mitchell, and — Loundcs. Three others (Albert Warren, James ■Mackay, and Albert Melville) are yet to be »erv€^

A PERMIT MATTER. A breach of the plasterers' award was ■charged against Charles Enwny, on account of employing a lad named Frank Brewer at less than tho stipulated wage. Mr. Herdman, counsel for Emcny, told the court that Brewer was employed by Emeny under a permit, but this permit had been terminated. Emeny, unaware of this, employed the youth again. The youth was employed for nine days at kas than the award rate of wages. The court inflicted a mitigated penalty, on the ground that Em«4y had shown a certain amount of diligence in the matter. He would be fined £1, and a penalty of 10s would be inflicted on Brewer. A SPORTING DRIVER. G. W. Connor (represented by Mr. N«a\v) .admitted two breaches, of the dr livers^ award, in respect of employment of a non-unionist and of payment for holiday labour. In regard to the second breach, it was explained that tho man drove a duck-shootinc expedition id the Upper Hutt on a Good Friday, anil remained there until Monday, shooting with the best of them. Ho should have come back to the city, in which event the payment of 10s extra that was paid would have covered the time spent in conveying the party. Mr. Aldridge said that a statement made by the man showed that he was paid only 169 for Good Friday, whereas he (should have been paid slightly over 21s. The court inflicted a penalty of £5 for breach of tho preference clause.- Ground for mitigation had been shown in the other charge, and a penalty of £1 would b# inflicted. THE MINIMUM WAGE. F. Seigel, charged with having employed a tailor named J. N. Stoimer at £2' 10s a week, instead of £2 15s, was fined £5. A 10s penalty on the employee was olso passed. CHARGE WITHDRAWN. In a case against R. Gilke6, of haviug broken tho butchers' award, Inspector .Aldridge asked for leave to withdraw the charge. It h*id been shown that the men went to th« shop, without Gilkes'e knowledge, on a Good Friday. When h» found them there h« ordered them to leave. The court fined tho men (Alexander Hifllop and L. Howard) 100 each, and allowed tlie,, caso against tho employer to bo withdrawn. DOCTORS' DRIVERS. Jam-as Johnston, who allowed men em ployed as drivers for doctors to drive cabs for him on ' Sundays, was fined £5. Mr. Grenfell appeared orf behalf of tho employer. Tho men concerned were named Schoch and M'Grecor respectively. Thoy wero fined 10s «ach. OTHER CASES. J. Stratford and Son, bakem, for having employed n, man at h&s than union wages, was fined £5. It was explained to the court that Stratford, the younger, who wav the psrson concerned in th« offence, had since given up business, and was in poor circumstances. The president said that the court could not nccept such statements; if Stratford was in such condition es represented, ho should come to the court and say so. A fino of 10s was imposed on the man P. Burke. A charge was brought ncainst Keir and Co., carters, that they failed to pay overtime during the week in which it was earned. Mr. Grenfell, for respondent company. eaid that the fault was wholly with the men, whoss practice it was to neglect to put in thsir overtime claims early enough to permit of this being done. The president said that this class of cass was one that embarraacd tho inspectors and made their duties difficult. A fino of £5 would be inflicted in the first case brought, and of £2 in each of three other cases. The four men concerned (Symons, Barrett, Fox, and Anderson) were oach fined »£l. J. Collie, for employing a non-upionist hi breach of tbe drivers' award, was fined £5. FUTURE BUSINESS. On Saturday, the president will sit by himself to take eoine evident* On Monday next, the court will sit to hear original disputes and arrange the order of business. The date upon which applications for enforcement will be taken will be announced later on. It is possible that the balance of these (undefended) cases, will be taken on Wednesday next.