ARBITRATION COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCVI, Issue 14428, 19 July 1907, Page 3

ARBITRATION COURT.

enforcement of awards. f The Arbitration Court resumed its sittings yesterday, and continued, tho bearing oi applications for. the enforcement of awards. Mr Justice Sim presided. with Messrs Slater and Brown. Baser and' Company were cited by the inspector under the Tanners* award for paying less than Is per hour, tho Awsrd rates, to certain employees below . twenty-one years of age. , The respondents were fined id ana *°ln the case against Moore Bros., cited by the General Labourers’ Union for not paying overtime, Mr A. PaterHon appeared for the Union, and Mr J. A. Flesher for tho respondents. Before the case opened Mr Patercon drew attention to tho provision that a solicitor could only appear tor one of tho parties with the consent of both, and said he had not been consulted or advised of Mr Flcsher’s appearance. 1 ftifi Honor said that time after tune St had been decided that that provision did not apply to enforcement cases. There had been hundreds of occasions on which it had been broughtBp and decided in that nay. Mr Paterson explained that Moore Bros.' were contractors, who, at the time of tho offence, held a large drainage contract. A number of men were employed overtime, but were paid only 'ls an hour, the regular rate, instead of la 3d, the proper overtime rate. G- Lyons, called by Mr Paterson, Stated that he had never been _ ur.derpaid. As a matter of fact, he had been overpaid to a small degree, owing to the way the time was calculated. I Mr Paterson applied to the Court for an order that the respondents should produce the time-books and pay- / TTiV Honor said it would be sufficient if Mr Patterson called a witness and demanded the books. One of the advantages of the inspector conducting the cases was that he could inspect tho hooks whenever he wanted to. ! B. Moore was accordingly called, and produced the books. He stated that Sn cases where a man was credited with eight and a half hours he would be „ paid 8e 6d, because the half-hours extra were nearly always odd periods of ijninutes to twenty minutes each. The | time-keeping system used was to in|crease the time credited. 'When a man. 1 worked four hours on Saturday he was credited with five, and if he worked three hours extra he was credited.with 1 four. This increased time was paid for *t ordinary rates. 1 Mr Paterson submitted that the hook must he taken as showing the Mftual time worked, whatever the sys-

t«rn. I 'Hi* Honor said that was not so. The witness had explained the system, and hi* explanation was the evidence and must-be taken as the fact. Moore was Mr Paterson’s witness, and he must not be argued-with. If Mr Paterson could not understand the case he ehould have allowed the inspector to conduct it. . , . i Mr Slater said that this sort of thing amounted to putting the man in the lio* and making him tell lies, j•, To Mr Flesher: He had followed the came system for fifteen years, and it wia always tp the advantage _ ot the men. The firm did not split hairs with tie men, and frequently the men had come back and told him they were overpaid. Witness said he often i>aid some, or the men extra if they bed some extra dirty or difficult work_ to do. _ , The case was dismissed, the Tjmon lo nay £2 2s costs to the respondents. Five oases against employee** of the respondents, for accepting insufficient were withdrawn. The men made an application for costs for their loss of time. Mr Paterson opposed the application, as the men had not _ fulfilled his expectations in the direction of their , evidence. , ■ , , ■ ~ ! .The Union was ordered to pay the inen who did not give evidence 16s each as witnesses’ expenses., ' . Edmonds and Page were cited for dis- \ toi**iug an employee without notice. I C. Page stated that the man in question was engaged for a specific work, on the understanding that he would not be employed when it was finished. He paid'off at the end of it, and the Union then demanded a.week’s wages in lieu of .notice. Mr Thorne said that the employe© made a statement that he knew his ! eMCaeement terminated with the work j Inland. I The Court decided that Edmonds ! '*nd Page had-committed no breach, but the Union was justified in bringing the case to have the point settled. The Union withdrew the case. 1 TV. T. Cronin was proceeded aejamst by the Inspector, under the Coachbuilders’ award, for failing to indenture an apprentice. He was also charged with employing an extra helper in the paint shop. „ 1 Hepleaded that the failure was an CBrsight. The deed was in a lawyer s nde, but was not signed. 'lnspector Hagger stated that the ap I wentice was umndentured for two ; wears. The respondent had alleged that •he of .the helpers was on approbation • ea ; an apprentice, hut the boy and his lather denied this. W. Cusack, a labouring helper, said {hftt boy Kerr iv&s understood to be on approbation for an apprentice-

Kerr said that he was not Indentured, and never, expected to be-He-went as a boy in the paint prop, and Expected-to learn the trade. ' The respondent said it was the fault trf' the boy’s father that he was not indentured. ' ~ , , , Mr Brown said the only safety for an Employer when a father did not turn up to-fndenture the boy was to tell him to go. Tho -father was not bound by tno •ward, but the employer was. ! The respondent was fined £o and costs for failing to indenture, and £3. and costs for employing the supernumerary Porter was charged by the inspector with not having exercised preference, as required by the Stonemasons •ward. He stated that he was not •ware of having committed any breach •f the award. Inspector Hagger read extracts from ♦h® employment book, showing that several Union men were unemployed on the day' Porter employed tho nonXJmdnist. The respondent stated that he employed the man in question because of tie greater suitableness for tho work •e had to do. After hearing the respondent’s evidence at length, tho Court found that Jie had no excuse for his action, and bad made no attempt to comply with the. pro visions of tho award. He was ordered to pay a fine of £3 and costs. | Under the Federated Tailoresses’ ’•ward; tue inspector cited the Kaiapoi "Wdollen Company for paying an insufficient wag© to a male presser. Mr Hus•ell'appeared for the respondents. Inspector Hagger said that a man named Trcmberth had been engaged as • seam-opener, but after four months lad been advanced to presser’s work, .which bo bad carried on since, j Tremberth gave evidence that (When he became presser his wages were increased from 2os to 27s 6d, and then to 305.-, He .had done four months’ work at 1 •eam-openirg. Understanding from his j fellow-workers that in two years ho i Would be a journeyman, ho expected to j pe ranked as a journeyman next month. Mr Russell said that it had been ai> 1 repted in the factory for twenty years I that a man must serve two years V fore : . Becoming a presser. The respondents Blaimed that, though there was no absolute contract to that effect. Tremfcerth was engaged on those terms. In ■ August, chertuore. he could receive tho full wage of £2 15s, just as if he was In'-.the factory under a written coni tract, v . V W. Lingy, factory manager, gave en~ 1

dene© in support of Mr Russell’s contentions.

T. Wilson, clothing manufacturer, said he was the last witness’s predecessor as manager, holding the position for twenty years. During that time pressere graduating from seam-opening served two years, on his own arrangement. The arrangement was generally known and accepted. J. Berryman, pressor at tho Kaiapoi Factory, said he had been working there for twenty years. He corroborated tho previous evidence as to the time of service. All the pressere had served two yeans. Mr Russell said •‘hat the award under which the charge was laid had since been supers'ded by an agreement, which had abolished tho six months’ period of probation unde;- the award, and reinstated the two years’ period which was enforced by the award, under which tho factory worked when Tremberth was engaged. This demonstrated that the iwo years’ perod was the proper time of service. The arrangement was consistent with honesty and- reason, and was not combatel except by the award, which, after a slio-t existence.'was suporecd'd. His Honor sa : d that after tho award of 1905 was made th" company was not justified in continuing the practice which had previously prevailed. Tho award was intended to supersede any existing practices. If there hod be°n any binding contract between the man and the company matters would have been d’ffereut. But three was- no such binding contr-ct, and the company or tbe -man could have quitted tho arrangement at any time. A breach bad been committed. Th" respondents would be fined £2 and costs. R. N. Overend was cited for not paying sufficient wages to an assistant. Hunt, for tbe respondent, stated that a man named Williams, being a cripple, desired to learn hairdressing, and being unable to pay a lump sum, agreed to go nishily to Overend’s shop for no wage. He was his own master. Inspector Ha<rrrer_eaid the facts were as stated. were made to him,, and he had no option but to bring the case before the Court. The Court recorded a breach, but imposed no penaltv. The same was done in respect of Wilburns. the employee.