ARBITRATION COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CIX, Issue 13122, 9 May 1903, Page 11

ARBITRATION COURT.

■ ■ The, Arbitration Court resumed its sittings at the Provincial Council Chambers vesterday morning ; present—His Honor *NIr Justice Cooper (President). Hr S. Brown (representative of the employee), and Air R. Slater, (representative of the "workers). THE BUTCHERS’ CASE. The case cf the Christchurch Operative Butchers’ Industrial Union of Workers against the Christchurch Meat Company was first called on. Mr Kippenberger appeared for the Union, *nd Mr Bussell for the defendants. Mr Kippenlber.ger said that the Union svas applying to have enforced nn award Siade by the Court on August 14, 1901. It was alleged that the defendant ccmpany had failed to give the required holidays on Good Friday of 1902 and; of ISO 3, and! on Nov. 14 of 1902, and had also omitted to employ more men. James an employee of defendants, stated that ho had worked on Good Friday of 1902 for two hours, having .received instructions to that effect. Other men were also working. In answer to Mr/ Russell, he stated that meat cams in on Friday to be broken dp and prepared for the Saturday’s trade. •Double the number of hands would ■ be wanted to do it ail on Saturday morning. .Mr Russell said that the fact of the men working for two hours on Good Friday of 1902 was admitted. The other two charges »f working' On holidays were also admitted. Air Kippenberger called evidence in retard to the ballot of the Union by which it had been decided to bring the case. For the defence, Air Bussell stated that the employers had no desire at all to commit a breach of tire award, but it was absolutely necessary to prepare for Saturday’s Work. James Knight stated that the whole staff >f a butcheii’s Si;op was fully cinployed from 8 , a.m. on Saturday morning in fulfilling orders.. If his men had not turned up on the Good Friday morning he would: .have had to work all day himself. None of the men had-objected to coming, and they had been given scores of holidays not provided for in the award. Francis Henry Steel gave similar evidence. James Forrester said that it would be •very inconvenient in a "big meat shop to prepare Saturday's supply on the morning sf that day. Sydney Alerrett, manager for the Christchurch Meat Company, said that the business icould nob be satisfactorily conducted unless Saturday’s meat was prepared on Friday. Joseph Kind stated that he bad been employed over Good Friday in one of the Bear Company’s Wellington shops, and had not worked on the holiday. Air Russell submitted that the men had worked on the Good Friday voluntarily in order to relieve themselves, of extra work on the following day. The men had thought so little of the breach that they took no action for ten months. Air,Kippenberger said that the defence amounted to the claim that the employers were justified in committing a breach of the award in order to avoid some inconvenience. , Counsel agreed that the evidence should be taken as covering twelve other charges against the Christchurch Aleat Company, H. B. Lane and Co., Rangoon and Steel, >nd James Knight, of having failed to give holidays an stipulated in the award. A charge was then brought against the Christchurch Aleat Company of having employed men for more than 56 hours during the week ending Oct. 12, 1902, Labour Day week.- Similar charges had been laid against James Forrester, James Knight, H. B. Lane and Co., and Albert Bull. Evidence was given by Janies Leckie to the effect that he had worked li hour over the proper time. After Joseph Kind had stated that he had worked 21, hours too much in Labour Day Week, Air Russell said that he was prepared to admit the facts as far as the Christchurch Aleat Company was concerned, Air Kippenberger asked leave to with-draw-charges of allowing men to work over the proper time against James Forrester, A. S. Bull, Brinkman and Skelton and A. 6. Forbes. The last, two cases had been fixed for hearing on Alonday. Counsel abated that the breaches had been merely technical, and the Union did not wish to proceed. His Honor gave leave to withdraw. ■Robert Brown stated, in regard to a similar charge against James Knight,. that in Labour Day week lie had worked for defendant, for more than the stipulated .fiftysix hours. William Searle, another employee of defendant, stated that he had worked _ ordinary hours during the week mentioned. This was without allowance for the Labour Day holiday, so that he had really worked over the proper time. / For the defence, James Knight said that lie had- heard nothing of the alleged overtime .except’in the Court. No complaint had ever been mad© to him. The men had worked the usual hours, and it had never occurred to him that the men had any grievance! His Honor said that the .Court would give its decision on Alonday. James Knight was then charged with having allowed employees to work more than fifty-six hours in the week ending August 2, 1902. . Evidence was .given by Robert Stamveen and William Searle, but as neither could swear positively to the time -worked, Air Kippenberger withdrew the charge. • James Knight was then charged with having employed Edgar Baker as a small-goods-man at £2 11s per week instead of at £3 10s, as required by the award. Edgar Baker stated that he had been employed by defendant, and had done the work of sin all g o od.s-m an. He did other work as well, carrying meat, looking after a horse and delivering orders. Ho had been engaged as a general hand. There jvas not enough small-goods work to keep him fully employed. His wages were £2 Us per week. James Fort said that he had been working for defendant as smallgoods-man three years ago, and had found plenty of work. Rowland Stedhart gave similar evidence. His Honor said that there was no case for the defendant to answer. Baker had simply ranked as a general hand, on his own evidence. The Christchurch Meat Company was charged with having employed a ncuUnionist named Robinson, when equally competent Unionists were available. Air Russell said that he would admit that at the time Robinson had been taken on he had not been a member of the Union. The Secretary of the Union stated that tome Unionists had been out of work at the time of the alleged offence. In the case of one of these men, his previous employers were not enumerated in the Union Book. His Honor pointed out that this was » breach of the award, and such a breach entitled the employers to employ whom they pleased. Sydney Merritt, manager for the Christchurch Meat Company, stated that when Ihe had taken on Robinson, he had thought him a Unionist. The man joined the Union three weeks later. Air Kippenberger said that he did sot feel justified in pressing the case. His Honor said that he would allow its withdrawal, and would give no ruling in regard to the method of keeping the employment book. James Forrester was charged with having employed two boys in August 1902, while employing only two men. William Harrington stated that ho was aged 20. He was employed by defendant »s a general hand, and since February of 1902 had been drawing £2 11s per week, a man’s wages. - There was only one boy employed by defendant. Air Kippenberger said that the Union icmed to have no case, and he would withdraw the charge. The Court then adjourned until 10.30 •..m, on Alonday.

Yesterday afternoon the Court further adjourned the unfinished case in the baking trade deputes until Monday afternoon 2.15,, His Honor caid, in regard to the

case against J. D. Philips, in 'which judgment had been reserved, that he had found it necessary to send for Air Justice Alartln’g note book, as no information was available elsewhere regarding the cases mentioned by the representative of the Union. Judgment would be given when this book had .been procured.