SUNDRY DISPUTES AND INQUIRIES

Maoriland Worker, Volume 11, Issue 475, 21 April 1920, Page 3

SUNDRY DISPUTES AND INQUIRIES

Mr. Haere, one of the Maoris engaged by Murphy at Panikau, Arikjhi, and Mangaheia, has been instructed by the Head Office to take legal advice on the question as to whether this employer was guilty of a breach of

agreement. Mr. Coleman, Branch Secretary, has been advised to assist this member in obtaining the best lawyer possible.

5. M. Hunt, Timaru, writes making inquiry as to what action' the Head Office proposes to take with reference to the dismissal of several shearers and others last season from Hakataramea. He has been advised, to take this case to Raymond, Raymond, and Campbell. Solicitors, and act on their advice.

J. P. Bashfard, Woodend, writes: "I have the following complaint to make and wish to know whether I have a case worth taking before a Magistrate. I was engaged by a ganger named Seaward for a run of three sheds, Glanmuick, Cat Hills, and Benmore, the last two places belonging to one owner, Hyde. I shore through Glenmuick, and Cat Hill, and on finishing the latter place Hyde informed mc that he had decided to only take four shearers on to Benmof",e and gave mc my cheque. I was therefore done out of the shearing of 600 or 700 sheep. I might say t.|3re was no question of incompetence' raised at the two sheds through which I shore. I have a witness as to terms of engagement, and Mr. G. Seaward, Kaiapio, will verify the above statement." This member has been instructed to act on a lawyer's advice, and that the Union will pay costs if he is unsuccessful.

P. B. Duggan, who was injured while in the employ of I\V\ J. R. Winslow, of Chatton, has been in-\ structed to place his case for compensation in the hands of a lawyer, and submit his costs to the Union for payment.

F. R. Ellniers, Taumahapu Station, Tinokino, states that he was engaged by the owner of the above station who was an excellent employer. The owner left for England and placed a manager in chargp who, allegedly, is not so excellent. This member is paid at the rate of SO/- a week and found, which he calculates works out at £6 for 28 days. Before the owner left he paid up to February 29. On March 31 Ell'mers asked the manager for his wages, and was surprised to find the manager contend that his wage instead of being 5/- a day (30/- a week for a 6-day -.veekj was only 4/33 a day, this disturbing result being arrived at by- the manager by reckoning the week a seven day one, and dividing 30/- by 7. In this way our member calculates that he has been rooked for thr-2o day's wages at 5/- a day. He wants ariA'ke on tho matter, and he also asks whether it is legal to give notice on Easter Monday. The nianager, he says, went to the races at Easier and .lit! part of the journey on Sunday nignt, and as he was not to have on tbc place on Monday this meatier wrote the notice out on Sunday to be given effect as from the Monday. The Head Office has sent the necessary advice, and in the matter of the notice has advised, in effect, that Easier Monday was a good day to leavo a boss like this. Mr. McDonald, Tai Tapu, wires asking whether the North Canterbury Threshing Mill Owners am obliged to pay shifting time on the outward journey from set to road. The reply seat is in the affirmative. W. Park, Balclutha, writes: "As a member of the New Zealand Workers' Union-1 wish to state that while working on Mr. Alex. Drummond's mill at Lauriston, .North Canterbury, I was charged 5/12 a day for food, or 36/----a week. The total amount I paid on this head for 4S days was £12/7/-, which I think is a little above the mark. The award says if I remejnber correctly that anyone leaving the mill during a season shall pay 24/2 a week, but the point is that we finished the season as the mill was burnt down and we had to pull in. I don't think the award mentions the conclusion of a season." This member has been advised that he has no claim on the mill owner, as the season finished with the burning of the mill.'

D. Fitzgerald, Mill Owner, Ashburton, writes the Head Office re the complaints communicated to the Union by Mr. J. Logan. Mr. Fitzgerald's letter encloses 7/6, which he pays rather than quarrel over the time which was kept by the time-keeper on the mill. He continues: "As to lunch times Logan was paid all that was due to him, as he only worked one day at hourly work while with mc, and as the award says nothing whatever about lunch time while on piecework I consider he Iβ not entitled to any. As to food overcharged: the accounts •were .made up and it came to 30/- a week per man without the 1/8 tor whare, which I never charge the men. All the men on the mill are Union men and are against Logan getting off at 24/2 and leaving the rest for them to pay. We had one ■week broken weather this season and all the men went homo or to town, and as Logan, paid board in town he considered he should not pay his share at the mill, so you can see it wouW be hard to settle up satisfactorily with a man like him." This case has been reported to Inspector Slaughter of the Labor Department in Chrlstchurch, ■as two breaches have been committed.