MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Northern Advocate, 26 January 1911, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

SITTING AT HIKURANGI

ALLEGED BREACHES OF AWARD.

At the Hikurangi Courthouse on Wednesday, Mr T. Scott-Smith presiding, the Hikurangi Coal Miners' Union claimed from the Northern Coal Company, Ltd., the sum of £25 as penalty for "an alleged breach of clause 17a of the Hikurangi Coal Miners' (Northern Coal Company, Ltd.) award, in that the Company during the month of May, 1910, discharged James Wallace without giving him 14 days' notice in writing as specified in the clause quot cd. Mr A. E. Skelton appeared for the plaintiff union and Mr J. M. Killen f'?r the defendant company. Mr Skelton, in opening the case foplaintiff, referred to other clauses in the award, which stipulated the.wa-jes for a surface laborer under whk-h heading the discharged man was employed. Counsel also mentioned previous decisions given by his Worship in Whangarei in similar cases some months back. Mr Killen contended that the discharged man was a casual hand. After the Union secretary had given formal evidence, James Wallace .-aul that he asked Mr Morgan, the mine manager, for employment. Witness declined a trucking contract, but .tcrepted surface labor. After three days he was discharged and paid off, whereupon he asked the manager to keep him at work for 14 days, that being the length of notice required, but the request was refused. By Mr Killen: He did not tell the manager that he was hard up and would be glad of a few days' work, and he did not understand that he would be engaged for a few days only. William Morgan, mine manager, deposed that James Wallace had asked for work, but would not accept a trucking contract on the plea that his legs were too weak. Wallace asserted that he was hard up, and accepted a fewdays' employment on the surface. George Doel, deputy manager, said that he had passed Wallace while the latter was on the surface work, and Wallace had said, in effect, that he would be finished in a few days. Mr Skelton drew a comparison between the character of the evidence on each side, contending that the testimony in plaintiff's behalf was clear and consistent; and that evidence for the defendant had been considerably shaken. Mr Killen held that, in his opinion, a mine manager had the right to employ casual labor. Judgment was given for the defendant company without costs. , In reply to Mr Skelton the Bench said that the costs of appeal would be £10. Two other cases, taken together, were cited as follows: — Hikurangi Coal Miners' Union v. Hikurangi Coal Company, Ltd. Breach alleged of clause 5a of the Hikurangi Coal Miners (Hikurangi Coal Company) award. Penalty £25. In that the company did employ miners at its mine at Hikurangi in places under Bft. vide and failed to pay such miners as specified in said award. Hikurangi Coal Miners Union v. Hikurangi Coal Coy., Ltd., penalty £25 for alleged breach of clause 8a of the Hikurangi Coal Miners' (Hikurangi Coal Coy. Ltd.,) award, in that the company did employ miners in its mine at Hikurangi at work which required timbering by means of props, and did fail to pay them as specified in the said award. Penalty £25. Mr A. E. Skelton appeared for plaintiff and Mr Richmond appeared for defendant. The magistrate, solicitors and both parties visited the mine prior to the commencement of the cases. Mr Skelton, in opening the cases, pointed out that if the work in dispute was not pillar work, then timbering should be paid for (a model was produced representing four pillars in a mine). The award read that pillar work was to be considered as such where the whole of the pillar is extracted. The system in dispute was not pillar work, because only a portion of the pillar was extracted. Coun sel referred to a place under Bft wide, pointing out that anything under Bft in width was insufficient room for a man to work in. The place in dispute was driven alongside an old board, which was filled up with mullock, so that it could not come under the heading in the award of side coal. Mr Richmond contended that in a general way this system of taking out pillars would be considered pillar work. The reason why this system had been introduced was on account of portions of pillars being lost under the old system, and the extra expense incurred by the old system for timber • ing and for the safety of life. Re the place under Bft wide, he contended that it was simply side coal as provided for in the award. After considerable evidence had been taken on both sides, the cases were referred by the magistrate to the Arbitration Court for decision.