BREACHES OF AWARDS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17198, 19 June 1916, Page 4

BREACHES OF AWARDS.

CHANGES AGAINST Ktn’I.OVEIIS

At, the Magistrate’s Couit on Saturday several industrial oases were hoard before Mr IF W. Bishop, S.AI FAILING TO PAY AWARD RATES. Sharpe Bros., aerated water manufacturers, Rnngior.n (Mr.'J. D. Harman), admitted two charges of failing to pay two employees tho award rate of wages. Mr Harman explained that various bonuses and payments hud been made to the two employees, who in this way probably received as much as the award rates. These two employees made up their own time-sheets. Inspector R. T. Bailey, for tho Labour Department, admitted tho correctness of Mr Harman’s statement. The Magistrate inflicted a line of 10s in each case, TOO MANY APPRENTICES. Francis Clark, electrical engineer (Mr F. f\. Hunt), was charged with employing more apprentices thru the award prescribed. Mr Hunt said that the award prescribed one apprentice to each journeyman. Before the war tho defendant. complied with the award, butnow four of his journeymen had enlisted and he found it impossible to replace them. Ninety per cent of the work involved Avns wiring, and not electrical engineering. The apprentices concerned wero being paid more than the award rate. E. Stark, city electrical engineer, corroborated Mr Hunt’s statement. Ho could not get journeymen, and there was an abnormal amount of electrical work being done. The work in his department was progressing at one-third the rate it should be progressing. 'Hie City Council had live journeymen and four apprentices. He had told the union that with twice as many men engaged there was still ten years’ work in sight in Christchurch just now. Inspector Bailo.v said that on ono occasion defendant liad eleven apprentices to five journeymen. The hoys were employed at os a week, were not paid over award rates, and were not being properly trained. Two of defendant's journeymen bad enlisted, and one apprentice. Tho clients of defendant got no advantage out of defendant’s employment of hoys instead of men. They paid just as much as if journeymen did the work. Me Hunt said the difficulties in tho trade would shortly be brought before the Arbitration Court for adjustment. The Magistrate said that pending that adjustment defendant must observe the award. His opinion, from personal experience, was that defendant ivas doing work too cheaply, and that bo was giving his clients tho benefit of his employment of apprentices. A nominal fine of 5s and costs was inflicted. FAILING TO GIVE NOTICE. J. 13. Blackburn (Mr F. J. Malloy) v.as charged with failing to givo the Tramway Board a week’s notice.

Defendant gave evidence that he was ill, ami had a. certificate fmm a chemist to that effect. He had applied to the hoard for a week's leave of absence, and had received no written reply. He denied that he went off to take a racehorse to Dunedin. Defendant was fined £2 and costs, the Magistrate remarking that a flagrant breach of the award had been committed. A CHARGE DISMISSED. James Knight, butcher (Mr A. T. Donnelly), was charged with working an employee after 1 i>.m. on the statutory half-holiday. inspector Hailey gave evidence that the employee, a boy, was delivering goods until 1.30 p.m. For the defence it was contended that the boy left the shop at 12.30 p.m. and had plenty of time to deliver his parcels by 12.45 p.m. The boy occupied three-quarters of an hour on his own business, ' Reuben Gieeson, the employee in question, gave evidence that what he told the Inspector was not true. Tho Magistrate interrupted further examination at the hands of Mr Hailey by remarking that after the initial statement the evidence was not wor(h much. lie could not Hold there was a breach, but he thought the boy was “a bit of an artist.” Tho ease was dismissed.