BREACH OF AN AWARD

Evening Post, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 104, 29 October 1909, Page 7

BREACH OF AN AWARD

JOINERS' OR CABINETMAKERS' WORK? MAGISTRATE'S DECISION.. Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M., to-day gave his reserved judgment in the case of the Wellington Furniture Union v. Hoyland and Co., a claim to recover a £10 pen-, alty for an alleged breach of the Wellington furniture trade award. The allegation was that defendants employed one Llewellyn Deslandes as an apprentice, without having him properly indentured. Plaintiff also claimed a £10 penalty for a second alleged breach, viz. — ■ employing one Harry Anslow at cabinet work and paying him only £2 per week of forty-six hours instead of Is 3jjd per, hour as provided. It was contended, on defendant's behalf, that his work was neither furniture- ! making nor cabinet-making, but a trade of its own, and more closely allied to the ! •carpenters' and joiners' rather than to cabinetmaking. "In my opinion," remarked Dr. M'Arthur, "I cannot declare this a distinct trade by itself, any more than I can declare stair-making a distinct trade. The question I have to decide appears to ma i to be to which tr.ade does it belong." | Continuing, the magistrate said : "The carpenter frames and puts together the structural parts of a building, such as the walls, the roof, the floor, and the partitions ; the former finishes the building by supplying doors, stairs, ordinary mantelpieces and cupboards ; while the cabinetmaker provides the furniture and high-class work, such as elaborate mantelpieces, air-tight showcases for shops, first-class bank and shop fittings. The bulk if not all of defendant's work appeared to be of the last kind. In my opinion, air-tight showcases and highclass fittings are shop furniture, and as such are the proper work of a cabinet or furniture-maker, much as staircase making is high-class joinery. Defendant seems to have thought that he was not subject to either the furnituremakers* or the joiners' award, and acted according^ both, in neglecting to indenture the apprentice and in employing an underrate worker without a permit. As he may have acted in a bona fide belief as to his position, I shall not impose the full penalty asked for, but, as "he must have profited greatly by his action, I cannot inflict a mere nominal penalty. The penalty, accordingly, for each breach was £5. Mr Fitzgibbon appeared for plaintiff union, and Mr Herdman for defendants.