ARBITRATION COURT.

Feilding Star, Volume I, Issue 283, 5 June 1907, Page 4

ARBITRATION COURT.

SITTINGS IN PALMERSTON. The Arbitration Court opened its sittings in Palnierafcon yesterday morning. His Honour Mr Justice Sim presided. With him were Messrs S. Brown Employers' representative) and R. Slater (employees' representative). £fter settling preliminaries, the Court proceeded to deal with a large number of cases of BREACHES OF AWARD, brought by the local inspector, Mr Hollows. A. Coley acknowledged a charge of haying employed a non-unionist driver. He said he had taken on the man because he could get no other, and had given him the money wherewith to join the Union. The Court inflicted a fine of £2 plus fees. Vinall and Millar wrote admittiug a breach of the drivers' award, but pleaded inadvertence. They were fined £2, plus fees. H. Palmer said that his breach of the drivers' award had been committed quite unwittingly. The boy he had was more often employed in the auction room than in the cart, and he was not aware that he. came under the drivers' award. Respondent, was fined £2, with fees. Another admitted case was that against ft 1 vrho wrote pleading inadvertence. The Inspector, in reply to the Court, said he had no reason to doubt the statement. A fine of £2 was inflicted as in the former cases. W. J. Phillips was charged with having employed a man at 25s per v.eek and found, 2s less than should have been the wage. The Inspector stated, however, that arrears ha«.l now been paid up. Respondent was ordered to pay the same fine as above. C. W. Blaekbourno admitted the commission of three breaches of the award by not payir.g wage 3in cash, but wrote stating that he was unable to get money from the bank and had paid by cheque on the proper day. In two of the cases the Court iecorded breaches on condition that respondent paid posts incurred by the Inspector, and in the third inflicted a fine of £1, plus fees. G. Craw said he had paid his flaxmill engine driver by cheque because the man himself asked for it. All the other men were paid in the same way, and he had really never given the matter a thought. In his opinion the charge was only brought out of spite. A fine of £1 was inflicted, respondent to pay the fees of ths I Court. The President impieesed on ! respondent that all clauses of the award must be (bsened. F. J. Shappard said his breach of the award was committed unwittingly. All arreirs of wages had now been paid up. Respondent was fined £2 and ordered to pay the fees of the Ccurt. J. A. Bitvhif was similarly dealt with on his admission of having employed a non-Union driver. A. C. Bradneld acknowledged two charges of breaches of the award by Laving employed youths as carters at a lower wage than provided. Ho pleaded ignorance of the law and a n. isunde-standing with the t<ecfetary of the Drivers' Union. He was fined £2 in each case, plus fees. J. Carian, who was represented by Mr Moore, pleaded guilty to one charge of having employed a man at 7s per tveel. less than the award ptipulated, and one of not giving preference to a Unionist. Mr Moore said that his client was unable to r<-ed or write and was quite, unacquainted with the law. The Inspector agreed with the statement? made and thought that possibly Carian had not understood the position at all. In one case, respondent was fined £1, while in the other the Court merely recorded a breach. Hotter Bros. (Mr Moore) admitted a technical breach by having employed a man at a lesser wage than provided, but urged that it was done as the result of misrepresentation by the latter. Respondent was fined £3 and ordered to pay the fees of the Court. D. Charker wrote that he was unaware that the preference clause applied to youths. A fine of £2, plus fees, was imposed. J. Lane was fned £3, plus fees, for employing a man at lower wages than provided. J. Perry, a carter, for accepting a lower wage than provided by the t'ward, was fined 10s. A. Alpin admitted not having paid a wage as stipulated, but said that, since he became acquainted with the award,' he had given the full amount. A fine of £2, plus fees, was imposed. .R. Rush, similarly charged, was fined the same amount. Rouse and Hurrell, through thenmanager, Mr Bishop, admitted having employed two lads as apprentice without giving notice. They were fined £2 in each case, plus fees. James and Co., charged with a similar breach, were fined the same sum. d. McCarthy pleaded guilty to a charge of failure to give preference to a Union driver, but said lie had only taken the man on in order to give him some employment. A fine of £2, plus fees, was inflicted. Ten charges of committing breaches of the Paintnrs' Union award, by payinc; fortnightly instead of weekly, ami by failure to pay overtime, were admitted by d. Harford. He said he had been quito ignorant of tbo award The Inspector said the total arrears of overtime was about £7. A total fire of £10, plus fees, was imposed. G. P. Amor, who admitted six charges of breaches of the same award, was fined P. 6, plus fees. W. Crichton acknowledged tivc charges of failure to pay overtime. He said that he had offered to pay up arrears if the matter were let drop. In the first cash he was fined £2, plus fees, and in the second a breach was entered only. The above cases were all undefended. The Court then proceeded to doal with a number of DEFENDED CHARGES. H. Palmer disputed a charge of having employed an unindentured boy in his furniture factory, but said that he had finally put him off on learning that tho'lad could not be permitted to stay. He supposed that a technical breach had been committed, but said it had been in gpod faith. The same respondent also explained a charge 'of having employed a cabinetmaker at less than the award rate. He said that he nad put the man off as soon as he had failed to get a permit to receive the lower wage. Fines of £2 in each case, with fees, were imposed. Sollitt Bros. (Mr limes) were charged with employing a youth at (8 per day, .instead of at Is 3d uer hour. The Inspector stated that the youth now, however, had got a permit to receive the lower wage. Mr Innes raised the point that Sollitt Bros had not engaged the jouth at all, for the simple reason that he was taken on by an incorporated com F»ny, by which his clients themselves weie really engaged. The eempanv was known as Sollitt Bros., Ltd., whereas it was Sollitt Bros wh. mere cited. The case was -allowed to stand down to permit of consultation with members of the firm as to whether they would give assent to the amendment of the application. D. Burke defended a charge of raving committed a breach of the drivers' award by employing a nonunionist dri/ar. Evidence was given by the man, W. Hay, as to having irorked for respondent. Ho was not a membw of the Vnkn at the tim«. He was employed driving nearly alt the while, was paid fortnightly, and mseived £4 2s on the second occasion. Respondent, in his evidence, said the man was employed at Is per hour, and was driving the greater part of his time As he was only employed as a casual driver it was not deemed •necessary that he should be a Union member. F6V employing a non-unionist he .was Pned £2, for nob paying the award rates a similar sum, while on the charge of not paying wages weekly a breach was entered. Hotter Bros. (Mr Moore) admitted that technical breaches had been committed in regard to the tiro cases Irought against th«m, but urged that the circumstances were rather peculiar. Arrears of wages had now been made up. Fines of £2, plus fees, were imposed for employing a i

non-unionist, and for not; paying the \ full wage. ! THE PAINTERS' DISPITE. i The Painters' Union applied for permission to add forty -five outside ' employers to the award- Tho secretary, Mr Elliott, remarked that the application was supported by the town employers, and was not opposed in any way. The application »vas granted. I The Court adjourned until 10 o'clock this morning i ■