PAINTERS'AWARD

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLVIII, Issue XLVIII, 29 January 1913, Page 4

PAINTERS'AWARD

, an Alleged breach. At the Magistrate's Court this momins the Inspector of Factories proceed; ed against G. W. Jacobs, to recover £lO "penalty for an alleged breach, ot the Painters' .award of .1910, in paying less than the minimum rate of wage. The case was adjourned from yesterday to enable the proper procedure -to bo looked up. v . ■ i „ ,■,,,.■ ' This morning it was agreed that tho Inspector was proceeding under the propar Act. ' " Defendant was defended by Mr Hayes, Arthur Samuel .Brough, called by Mr. Tyson, deposed that lie drove, evil engine, .did ipainting, and could turn his hand .to most things. Mr. Galbraith, the «oiitractor for the Glenhope railway buikir ings, engaged witness for. painting on behalf of defendant, at &s .a day... H«* accepted the job, as he Avas fed to believe that the award did 'hoi. reach .to. Glenhc,pe. ' V. ■';.. Cross-examined: He was' it sort .of handy man. He finished up his'job wjth defendant at Mr. Warnock's. Ho was net ■■told by defendant to cletm out gutters at Warnock's, and defendant did not tell him that he should not have dotv? any painting at Warnock's. He worked for defendant in October and November, •durine which period he did work (26 for Mr. McArtney (plumber) but was paid bv defendant.. . . • , , Re-examined : He was working for defendant at Mr. Litrlciohn's house, ni Nelson, where'defendant saw him paintin'r. "George H. Campbell, called bv Mi'. Hnyes. said Mint he. was a master painter. The witness 'Brough he would class asjv. rough hand, but in some circumstances he .would be regarded as a journeyman. Cross-examined: Whan lie employed Brough about eight yean* ago he paid him "the full award .wages. He \vbuld consider burning off as work move for an ex-nert. The defendant stated that Brough worked for him. for McArtney, and for Galbraith at Gle.aii.-jpe in October and Novtv.ivber, and witness paid him for all the work . Brough worked for witness in Nelson, and was to clean out gutters nt Mr. Dittlejohn's, and to hold the pot used for roasting; oil paint, but hot to do the actual burning off. He saw Brough painting, and witness told him that it was not good enough, and ihe would have to knock off. Brough was not by any means a journeyman painter. Cross-examined: He knew Brougfli was painting in iNe'lson, but did. not know what he was doing at Glenhope. Mr. Hayes submitted Mini Brough was not a journeyman, and/therefore did not come within the words of the award. The Magistrate said that this would furnish a very simple evasion of the Act. " Mr. Tyson eaid that there was ,pi'ovision for paying loss than the. award minimum, on proper aoplication beiing made. He nrodncrd the authority of Mr. Justice Sim in support oT the p'vosecut.ion. The Magistrate saij that on the- faco <*■ appeared, ae Mr. Justice Sim said, that if a man wa3 employed to do cer-" tain work he must he regarded as a journeyman and paid accordingly. However, ho would 'look through the award, and '.<?n into the matter more cloEelyy and give judgment on Tuesday nest,'