MACHINIST OR LABORER

Evening Star, Issue 15137, 19 March 1913, Page 2

MACHINIST OR LABORER

'A PECULIAR POSITION. A second case of alleged breach of award was heard in the Magistrate's Court by Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M., yesterday afternoon. Joseph Hollows, Inspector of Awards, proceeded against A. and T. Burt, Limited, for the recovery of £lO as a penalty for a breach of the Otago and Southland metalworkers' assistants' award of December 22, 1910, in that they employed during the period from September i, 1912, to February 11, 1913 ; Frewin Emery as a machinist and paid him only lljct per hour instead of Is Id per hour as required by the award. There was an alternative claim for breach of award for the same defendants employing Emery as a laborer and paying "him only lljd per hour instead of Is per hour as required by the award. Mr A. S. Adams appeared for the defendants. In the course of his evidence Emery stated that he was a cistern worker, his work being that of fitting the different parts of a cistern together. William Frederick Charles Fail, foreman at A. and T. Burt's, considered that Emery was what lie would term a cistern fitter. He was neither a machinist nor a laborer. After a great deal of argument, the Magistrate said that in a case of that kind it was incumbent on the department to produce more evidence than had been done in the present case. It was a peculiar case, and sufficient evidence had not been brought forward. He would nonsuit plaintiff.