ARBITRATION COURT

Evening Star, Issue 19953, 24 August 1928, Page 5

ARBITRATION COURT

INTERPRETATION OF PAINTERS' AWARD HOTEL COMPANY A SUBSEQUENT PARTY. His Honour Mr Justice Frazer lias given his opinion in a. case iu which the Inspector of Awards proceeded against the Leviathan Hotel Company in two claims, each ot £'lo, as penalties for breaches of the painters and decorators’ award. The case was originally heard in tho Magistrate's Court, but at the request of the parlies concerned it was submitted to the Arbitration Court for an opinion. The iacls of the first, claim were that tho defendant co|upany, which was bound by the award, employed two men to do painting work and paid them only £(i 10s per week and £•'! pci- week respectively, instead of at the rate of l’s 3d per hour, as required by the award. Jn tho second claim it was stated that tho company employed three men who were not members of tho Dunedin Painters and Decorators’ Industrial Union ami failed to give notice iu writing of such employment to the secretary of tho union. Counsel for the company contended that it was not a subsequent party ta I lie award, that (ho painting done was incidental to and formed part of the ordinary work of tlie men as private hotel employees, and that tlie company was not engaged in tlm industry ot painting by reason of employing the me n. The company was, in the opinion of tho Arbitration Court, a subsequent party to the award. Tho work of painting the hotel was unquestionably undertaken for the indirect pecuniary gain of tho company, and tho interpretation of the award was applicable to tho circumstances of the case. It was generally recognised that hotel porters might bo employed, as part _ot their regular duties, in performing minor operations that were part ot a. tradesman’s work, such as renewing the paintwork on tho outside of stair trends, painting over blemishes, and similar trilling jobs of a routine nature. If an hotel proprietary undertook to do major painting operations it became a subsequent party to the award, and was bound by its provisions. In this case it was admitted that tbe_ work undertaken comprised the painting ol the whole of the exterior of a large hotel building, and accordingly tlie defendant company would have to be regarded as having become 8 subsequent party to the award.