MASTER AND SERVANT.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVII, Issue 110, 11 May 1909, Page 7

MASTER AND SERVANT.

CESSATION OP WORK. ALLEGED BREACH OF PREFERENCE CLAUSE DISMISSED. Dr. M'Arthur, S.M., in his civil jurisdiction to-day, delivered reserved judgment relative to an alleged breach of ths preference clause of flic arbitration award in the case in which the Wellington United Furniture Trade Industrial Union of Workers proceeded against the D.I.C. of New Zealand, Ltd., Wellington, for recovery of the sum of £1 as a penalty. In the particulars of the case, it was itated that the defendant company, on the Ist February last, employed a carpet planner named Marshall, who was not a member of the union, when there was a unionist ready and willing to undertake the work. For the defence, it was contended that employers should not be compelled to dismiss, or refuse employment to, any person legally employed by them when the award came into force. Evidence showed that Marshall had served an apprenticeship, and was continued on as a journeyman. When he was a journeyman he was asked to stand down for a day or two, owing to slackness of work. lie was again taken on, and it was argued for the union that ho had ceased to be employed by the defendant company, and that putting him on again was a new employment, and consequently a breach of the preference clause of the award. His Worship held that he could not agree with this contention. "Suspension," he remarked, "is acknowledged by statute, but that there may be no abuse, it is limited to a period of ten days, beyond which term it is deemed to be dismissal. In many kinds of employment, the relation of master and servant does not necessarily cease on the suspension of the servant through slackness of work. A mere interruption in the earning of wages does not of itself constitute a cessation of the relationship of master and servant. In the present ea^e," continued his Worship, "there was no tm willingness on the part of the defendant company to give work or on the part of Marshall to accept work. Therefore, in my opinion, there was no break in the relationship of master and man, and hence no breach of the award." The case was accordingly dismissed without costs. Mr. Wilford appeared for the plaintiff union, and Mr. Levvey, acted on behalf of the defence. Leave was granted to appeal to the Arbitration Court.