Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

ARBITRATION COURT.

INTERPRETATION OF AWARD, (Per Press Association.) AUCKLAND, Last Night. The Arbitration Court has given its decision in *ie application for an interpretation of the Award relating t« creameries, cheese, and butter factories The facts were that the Glaxo Company took over the dried mills factorv at Matangi in August, 1920, and was not bound by the Award made two months later for dried milK factories. The firm ceased making dried milk in March, and commenced making cheese. Overtime was not paid to the employees for time m excess of 44 hours after April Ist, as provided in the cheese factories award. The question was whether, the change over brought the company within the provisions of the cheese factory award, and thus made it a subsequent party to one part of the award, while at the same time it was not bound by the award so far as it -elated to its principal business. The Court stated that section 90, sub-sec-tion 3 of the Act was designed only for the purpose of bringing in as a subsequent party any employer who commenced business in an industry to which the award applied, while in force. The Court was of opinion that it had no jurisdiction to treat several branches of an industry covered by one award as separate industries, so as to automatically bind an employer not originally bound, who commenced operations in one of those branches in which he was not engaged when the award was maae. it thought the application to join the company as a party should :>e made in the ordinary way. Regarding the Chnstchurcli wire re th? freezing employers, the Registrar of the Court stated that the Court knew 013 no a nblguity in the general order, but thought the message might lefer to some difficulty in deducting per hour a reduction from the existing percentage increases. If tins is the case, it is a matter peculiar to freezing workers' awards, and does not create any difficulty in the case of other awards. It is possible that there has been so.ne misreading or the terms of :he general order.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/MT19220516.2.48

Bibliographic details

Manawatu Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 2124, 16 May 1922, Page 5

Word Count
354

ARBITRATION COURT. Manawatu Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 2124, 16 May 1922, Page 5

ARBITRATION COURT. Manawatu Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 2124, 16 May 1922, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert