“WE WERE LAMBS"

Evening Star, Issue 18998, 21 July 1925, Page 6

“WE WERE LAMBS"

INJUDICIOUS DISPUTES COMMITTEE CASE BEFORE COURT At the Magistrate’s Court this morn* ing. before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., Percy Henry Kinsman (inspector of awards) proceeded against 11. MTvinlay and Sons, Ltd. (Mr J. B. Callan), for a penalty of £lO for failing to carry out the finding of the Disputes Committee in the matter of a bonus duo to A. Whitburn, under the A. Smellie, secretary of the Disputes male boot operatives’ award Committee, said that the committee had unanimously decided to inform the firm that Whitburn was entitled to payment of the bonus, and a request for payment was made within fourteen davs. , . , , to Mr Callan: It was admitted that Whitburn received the minimum rate of wages as provided under the award, but it was contended that there, was an agreement between MTvinlay and Whitburn for the payment of a bonus. The Disputes Committee was primarily an advisory body, consisting of four employees and an equal number of employers, although the award provided for a total of six. The Magistrate said that it appeared from the award that no provision was made for piecework. John Frame, boot manufacturer, a member of the Disputes Committed said that he was chairman of the. meet* ing that had considered the matter of the bonus. He invited Mr M’Kinlay to be present. There was no case batore the committee. The Magistrate: Why did you _ paw the resolution? You ordered M'Kinlay to pay the amount,, and the case didn’t even go before the committee. Witness: Yes. I am sOrry to say that was so. M “Wo were lambs in tins case," added witness, “ and didn’t think that it would come before a magistrate.” The Magistrate: Well, you should have been more careful. Witness said that they were amazed to think that the inspector had taken their poor little decision ,to the court. Mr Callan: We are much obliged for your candor. . The Magistrate; It is unfair to blame the inspector. Witness said that they didn’t consider they were trying a case, but thought that they were simply hearing a charge. '*• Mr Callan submitted that the matter dealt with by the Disputes Committee did not come within the scope of the award. It was not a dispute between the union and the employer, but between the employees and the employer. M'Kinlay had every right to treat the committee’s decision as a nullity, and M'Kinlay had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the committee. Mr dallan also drew attention to what lie_ described as the injudicial manner in which the committee had dealt with the matter. The Magistrate said that it was quite clear that the prosecution had failed, as the committee had no .jurisdiction ip dealing with tln> matter m the way thaT had been used. The action of the committee, he said, had been so irregular as to make the proceedings Gilbertian, and also sufficient to render the finding a nullity. The award provided for a committee of three on each side, but a committee of four from each side had been set up. His Worship also referred to the fact that tho committee had merely accepted the statements contained in a letter from the union, and then had arrived at its decision. Notice should have been sent MTvinlay in a regular manner. Ho had not overlooked that Frame had given notice to M'Kinlay, but this had only been a friendly sort of notification to the effect that he had better attend the mating of the committee, as “something might be doing.” Tho Magistrate added that he had been stressing these facts in order that the committee should set its house in order. Judgment was then entered for defendant. .... £ Mr Callan made an application for costs, stating that the department should have been aware of the fact that the matter in dispute did not come within the scope of the award. The Magistrate said that it might be easy for a lawyer to see that, but the inspector had not the advantage of legal knowledge, and ho could nob accede to the application.