WARNING TO EMPLOYERS

Grey River Argus, 30 November 1938, Page 9

WARNING TO EMPLOYERS

non-unionists in their employ.

A claim for a penalty of £lO, for a breach of the Carpenters and comers Award in that between October W and October 17, 1938, he employed Dudley M. Rathbun, who was not aJ member of the Union, was made against Edward Ward Rathbun, builder of ‘Greymouth, by the Inspector of Awards (Mr. W. R. J- Montgomery), in the Magistrate’s Court at Greymouth yesterday, before Mr. Raymond Ferner, S.M. Mr. Montgomery said this was the first cast of its kind in Greymouth where an action had been b fought against a defendant firm for a breach of the very important amendment to the IC.A. Act, and it was one which vitally affected practically every person employing labour under awards and industrial agreements Section 18 of the LC.A. Amendment, 1936 made provision that whilst an award or agreement was in force and continued in force, it shall not be lawful or any employer bound by the award or agreement to employ or continue to employ any worker who is not a member of the appropriate Union. The only exemption was the mabil ity of the Union to supply a unionist ready and willing to undertake the work being done by a non-unionist. It would be realised that the onus of seeing that all of their employees were members of a Union applicable to their activities, rested with the em ployer. The lack of attention to this- detail was becoming increasing y evident in the administration of awards on the West Coast, and employers in industries which were not previously covered by awards, such as clerical workers, bakers and driver , etc., would require to note this important provision. These P were brought more as a warning but the Department could not extend the past leniency'indefinitely and future breaches in this category would result in a more serious view being taken and a correspondingly heavier penalty being asked for. Defendant, he said, had had his brother working for him, and he was not a member of the Union. He promised to fix the matter up but failed to do so. For defendant, Mr. C. R. McGinley said that the offence was admitted. Defendant’s brother, Dudley Rathbun, had been working on his own account for some years. Defendant was not aware that his brother was not a member of the union. In fact he believed it was not necessary for ’him to be an employer himself. Defendant requested his brother to become a union member after being interviewed by the Inspector. Dudley Rathbun made several attempts to get in’touch with the Secretary, but subsequently found that he had been calling at the wrong office. As this was the first case of its kind on . the West Coast, Mr. McGinley asked that a nominal penalty be inflicted. The Magistrate said that the claim had been brought to emphasise the fact that employers must see that their employees were members of a Union. In the circumstances, judgment would be entered for plaintiff for £l.