BREACH OF AWARD

Evening Star, Issue 19615, 22 July 1927, Page 8

BREACH OF AWARD

CASE IH AEBITBATIOH COURT ... PAYMENT FOR COUNTRY WORK 1 In the Arbitration Court this morning tiio inspector of awards proceeded against the Upper Nevis Gold Dredging Company for a breach of tho carpenters’, award. : It was claimed that the defendant company was bound by the award in that, on or about March I, J£)27, it employed J. Anderson and J. Al'lvor as journeymen'.carpenters on country work and failed to pay to each of..the,ln Is 2d a'day as’country allowance, or in lieu to provide them, at its own expense, with suitable board ami lodging.' Inspector A. T. Grandison conducted the case for the d partmout, and Mr A. S. Cookson appeared for the company. The Inspector said it was claimed tha the company became a subsequent party to the award, and was bound b, the award. It employed the twe me on the construction of a pontoon which was to be used for dredging, and afterwards on the power house. The company, it was contended, was building the pontoon and the power house for indirect pecuniary gain. Evidence was given by Anderson that ho was engaged in Dunedin to go to Upper Nevis He was told.he was t 1 do carpentry work, and he understoo.; it was to be in accordance with Arbitration .Court rules. He was paid 2s Gd an hour, and 25i a weak was dcductec; for board.

In reply to Mr Cooksou, witness sau. lie knew tho 2s Gd per hour was above tbo award rate No arrangement wan made in Dunedin nbout tbo deduction for board. They worked ten hours r. day, and no overtime was paid. Mr Grandison said that the fact tha. no overtime was paid seemed to shov. that it was country work Evidence was also given by M‘lvoi He said lie went to Nevis as tho result of a telegram which was sent to him from there. Mr Cookson said the company did not regard itself as hound by the award -It all, and held that it did not become a subsequent par'y to the award when it engaged the men. The rules of the court foi many years had. excluded such people as these. Andev son had never claimed no was cntitlci to the country work till he returned to Dunedin, and was “ primed up ” tc it. M‘ Ivor was engaged on H’o job, ind conld not be held to be doing country work. Sidney C. Facho, manager of the company, gave evidence. He said the men who were engaged in Dunedin were given to understand that the rate ■was 2s 6d a day for ten hours a day, and that Hup would Be charged 25s a week for hoard If they liked to come up under those conditions, well ana good. Anderson had never complainea to him that he was entitled to the allowance for country work. The Court retired to consider the matter, and on return His Honor sain tho judgment would be a majority one. «s Mr Scott did not agree with th< other members of the court on the matter. In tho case of Anderson ther. was not the slightest doubt that he wn engaged in Dunedin to go to Nevis. The compact was complete. In the case of M‘lvor tho position was different, ns he could fairly be said to have been engaged at Nevis. The point might be raised that M‘lvor was there fore entitled to overtime, but that question did not concern the court. So tar as Anderson was concerned the provisions of the award must apply. No doubt the company believed in ah good faith that it was not bound by the award. The decision which wm recently given by the court in a painter’s case decided the point. A breach would bo recorded in the ease of Anderson; not in favor of M'lvor. As the inspector had brought the matter ns a test case no penalty would be awarded