DISPUTED AWARD.

Grey River Argus, 8 July 1922, Page 5

DISPUTED AWARD.

HOTELKEEPER PROSECUTED. WELLINGTON, July 7. The Court of Appeal heard argument to-dav in the case of the Inspector of Awards v. Fred Fabian. Tho ease was stated for an opinion from the Court of Appeal by Air Justice Frazer. Tlie Auckland Licensed Hotel Employees’ Award which came into operation on February 1, 1922, provided that all employees should be allowed one week’s holiday on full pay’ | each year, after 12 months’ service. The defendant, Fabian, employed one, J. Blake from October, 1920, to January 30, 1922, and the point is whether the award was to be construed as entitling Blake to include any period prior to coming into the operation of tho award, in computing the 12 months referred to. Air AfacGregor, K.C., Solicitor-Gen-eral, appeared for the Inspector of .Awards, and Dr Fitchett for Fabian. Air MacGregor stated that Arbitration Court awards in similar terms to the one under discussion had been interpreted as meaning an employee who, at any time after coming into the operation of the award, had completed 12 months’ employment, became entitled to one week’s holiday on full pay. This he contended was the only reasonable Judgment was reserved. APPEAL COURT.

WELLINGTON, July 7. i Tho Court of Appeal has concluded hearing argument in a case of the Inspector of Awards v. Fabian. Dr Fit cliett, for the defendant, contended the clause under review was a penal one and, as such, should be construed strict ly. The language of the section certainly was not clear, and the party on whom the‘penalty was imposed should have the benefit of any ambiguity. The i Court reserved decision. 1 The Court also discussed appeals against sentences for criminal offences by George Kelly, of Auckland, and Robert Gilmour Allen, of Wanganui. 11l the former ease, the Court decided that the Act allowing for appeals was not retrospective.