Untitled

Maoriland Worker, Volume 13, Issue 26, 27 June 1923, Page 14

the time," that at least is the position m New Zealand in 1923. But thiere is Lope, even the hymn promises something after a few more years shall have rolled; optimistic folk put six years as the maximum, pessimistic, declare? for n'ne, and fools, idiots and grown-up children for twelve. The spoilers go nap on forever (and ever, but if the promised something does not start getting WjOll over the horizon in THREE years it will simply be because the workers in letting the locomotive pull them in the wrong direction, notwithstanding the advice or warning of an eminent lawyer, given free, gratia and tor nothing.—SPE9.

tnitted as distinct from the facts in this instance. The Court held, that half yardage rates were not payable for bringing back side coal in bords and pillars. DIRTY WOJtK. 2. Are loco, repairers entitled to payment of 2/6 per shift in respect of their ordinary work at WestportStockton Mine? Evidence was given by Mr. Evans In support of the Union's claim to dirt money for those workers, whilst Mr. Swinburne gave evidence in support of the company's contention that loco, repairers were not entitled to the allowance, except where the work was exceptionally dirty, Ths Court held that the clause in question applied only in respect of exceptional work outside the ordinary routine oC the loco, repairers' usual employment. If loco, repairers were called upon to do unusual work of an exceptionally dirty nature, tlioy were entitled to the extra payment for that particular work, but not otherwise. ' WET ALLOWANCE. S. Are loco, drivers and brakesmen at the Westport-Stockton Mine entitled to payment of 2/- per shift extra, because of weather conditions? Mr. Mcßridc submitted that under a local agreement between the company and these workers an extra 2/per day was payable. Mr. Hammond contended that the new award superseded the agreement referred to, but in any case the rate fixed in the new award included tho 2/- allowance. The Judge said that when the new award was made, the local agreement, ceased to operate. When the Court made the new award, it fixed these particular rates at the same- figure as was being paid to them at the time, but did not distinguish between the allowance of 2/- and the remainder of the rate. The fact that the relative difference between these workers and hydraulic brakesmen is now less than In 1914 was not because these woi-k----ers had gone back, but because the Court awarded something extra to hydraulic brakesmen. Loco, drivers and brakesmen are provided for under the present award, and are not entitled to the extra allowance in question. TOP COAL. 4. Are these rates payable irrespective of whether the top coal is taken down from solid or pillar workings? Mr. Mcßride submitted that for taking tops from solid workings solid rates were payable, and that the rates fixed in the award contemplated pillar workings. Mr. Hammond maintained that the award provided for taking down top coal irrespective of whether it was in solid or pillar workings. The Court held that the award had to be interpreted as it stood, and that being so, it was obliged to hold that the award did not make any distinction between coal in wide or narrow workings. Justice Frazer said that in interpreting an award, the Court, as a court of law, was obliged to regard the matter entirely from a legal point of view, and interpret the meaning of a particular clause of an award by the manner in which that meaning was expressed. He had gone into lengthy explanations of the Court's reasons for arriving at its decisions for the purpose of assisting the Unions to understand the reasoning applied by the Court. Although these judgments had been given orally, the Court would reduce them to writing in order that they might be placed on record.