BREACH OF AWARD

Evening Star, Issue 21881, 19 November 1934, Page 13

BREACH OF AWARD

ARBITRATION COURT'S INTERPRETATION Judgment has been delivered by Mr Justice Frazer in. the, case in which the Inspector of " Awards at Dunedin (George Henry Lightfoot) proceeded m. the 'Arbitration Court, against W. Williamson, of Christchurch, a builder,for a breach of .the New Zealand (except. Marlborough) carpenters’ and joiners’ award. The hearing took place on October 29, and defendant was represented by Mr J. M. Paterson. The; plaintiff claimed to recover from the defendant /he sum of £2O as a penalty for a breach of the New Zealand carpenters’ and joiners’ award. It was claimed that, the defendant, being a party to and bound by the award, during the week ended March 27 last, employed G. Austin and other carpenters in excess and outside of the hours fixed in clause 1 of the award, and failed to pay overtime rates. Alternatively, the plaintiff claimed to recover from the defendant the sum of £2O as a penalty for. another breach of the award in that during the months of January, February, and March the defendant employed G. Austin and other carpenters on “ country work ” and failed to provide them with suitable board and lodging, or in lieu thereof to pay them the additional sum .of 4s 6d for each working day. ■ ,

After covering the evidence, His Honour stated that in the present case the work was performed within two and a-half miles from the principal’ post office of the borough of Balclutha, and was neither suburban work nor country work. In the opinion of the court, overtime rates- were payable for Work done in excess of the ordinary, hours of work, and the defendant com-, mitted -a - breach of clause 3 of the award by failing to pay those rates* No breach of clause 6 was committed,for the work was mot within the provisions of that clause. The proceedings were brought in order to obtain an interpretation of the award, and the inspector intimated that he did not press for a penalty. The defendant’s bomv fides were not in question, and it was stated by the inspector that both the. defendant and -his workers had regarded the 'work' as being countrywork, and that country . allowance had been' paid to certain workers. In the circumstances, a breach of the award was recorded, but no, penalty would be* imposed. . The inspector is entitled to recover, .witnesses’ expenses, on tlia Magistrates’ Court scale, from the de* fendaut. ■ : : :