ARBITRATION COURT

Grey River Argus, 9 June 1933, Page 5

ARBITRATION COURT

TIMBER WORKERS Appeal Disallowed (per Press Association) CHRISTCHURCH. Jurn- 8 A ease, with possible bearing c-n. the «-ost to the public of prepared timber, vvas heard in the Arbitration Court, when the Inspector of Awards appealed against the decision of Mt Lawry. S.M., who recently dismissed an information against the firm of Hardie and Thomson, Ltd., for alleged breach of the award. The question was whether an employee of Hardie and Thomson, Ltd-, should be paid' under the North Canterbury Timber Yards. Sawmills and Coal Yards Employees’ Awards, or whether he was entitl'd to payment at the higher rate under the Carpenters and Joiners’ Award. It was stat'd that the case was of considerable importance to timber merchants throughout the Dominion. CHRISTCHURCH. June 8. IL T. Bailey, for the Labour Department. submitted that when making p'rovision for making payment of this class of worker, the Court made no distinction between carpcni* rs, joiners and joiners machinist. He therefore claimed that joiners machinist should be paid under the carpenters- and joiners’ award. Mr Young, for respondent, said tho case was important to firm- in all parts of New Zealand, for there would be considerable financial 10.-s to firms concerned, if machinists w-re classed under carpenters’ and joiners’ awards. His Honor held that a joiner-mach-inist was only one particular class of wood working machinist, and he was covered by the timber yards and sawmill employees’ award. His IL.nor dis allowed the appeal Application was ma.lv t-.» Arbitration Court to-day by the <':iuterbury Shirt (White and Silk) Workers’ Union to have the recently concluded industrial agreement made into -m award by the Court. Mr Roberts, for the Union. t,d that the majority of employers employing the majority of workers in th'- •irtrict, had signed the agreements. His Honor said that the.--- parties who had signed the agreement were bound by it, but those who had no yet signed it were not liable under it. since no dispute had ever been created. Until they were joined to the agree ment the award could not be made for employers It was argued that until the oil award was disposed of, parties, not signatories to the new award, would be bound by the old award. His Honor refused the application as there was a danger if it was granted of there being two awards, side by side, in the same district. Both sides would now be free to get rid of the old :»war<l by creating an industrial dispute.