BREACH OF PAINTERS' AWARD

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLVIII, Issue XLVIII, 5 February 1913, Page 6

BREACH OF PAINTERS' AWARD

■DEFENDANT FINED. Mr J. S. Evans, S.M., gave his reserved decision th-6 morning in the case in wnich the inspector oi Factories sought iO recover from U. Jacobs a penalty of £lO in respect of an alleged breach of the Painters' Award in paying less than the rate of wages stipulated therein. The judgment was as follows :—"The defendant is a master pain.er; and is charged with failing to pay a 'jouriwy; man,' painte r the award rate qi wagts, namely, Is 3d per hour. The defenoarit employed a man named Brugh at the rate of 9s per day. This man is not a tradesman, but is described, and describes himself as a handy man. He was employed by the defendant, or with the deienoant's knowledge, at painting work and was paid less than the award rate for the per : od of his employment. Mr : Hayes contends that, the employee was I not a 'journeyman,' and quotes the dictionary" definition of a 'journeyman,' which is 'one who has mastered a handicraft or trade,' "distinguished from 'apprentice or master workman.' It may be conceded that on the evidence the employee is not a 'journeyman' within the„,j definition of the term. Is he a 'journeyman' within the meaning of the award ? The award contemplates two kinds of I employees only—namely, journeymen and apprentices. Journeymen are divided into e< mpetent and incomptent workers. In my opinion every person employed by a party to the award at painting, or where pa:::iniif is part of his employment, must he deemed to be emplo/id aiider the award, and while engaged in painting ia apy o f its branches, such melton whether competent or mconi*j3tent, from a tradesman's point of view, must be paid in terms of the award. If th;j workman is incompetent he may' a.|'ply for the exemption and certificate under clauee 3 of the award dealing with incompetent worker*, If the employer Continues to ejnploy him at painting without getting the exemption under Clause 3 he-must bs deemed" to be a journeyman and entitled to the award rate. There is no provision in the award for the employment or payment of painters' labourers, and it has not been proved that any custom exists of employing- painters* labourers. In this case Brugh at some periods of his employment was doing work that a painters' labourer might do. but it :a equally dear'that at other periods he wa°. doing painter's work, with ' " knowledge and consent of the defendant, and no distinction was made in regard to his tim" '«.!• these different kinds of work. I n:ust therefore a«?ume until the contrary is proved (and the burden of proof is on th« d«fend«vi*'. tjiat Brugh wae employed under the award. He is In my opinion in the cireumstanoes to be deemed a journeyman under the award, though not a tradesman within the dictionary definition. This view is ?upportcd by Canterbury Conch Builders' Union v. Boon and Co., Book of Awards Vol. V. 302. ; Inspector of Awards v. A. and T. Burt, Ltd.. Book of Awards, Vol. IX., 610: The Auckland Carters' Union v. Peach. Book of Awards 1903. Vol. IV., p. 130; and Inspector of Awards v. Henderson and Orav, Book of Awards, 1908, Vol. IX., p." 67. I find, therefore, that the defendant employed Brush for the period set out as a painter and did not pav hun the award rate, and it is ord w-d that the plaintiff recover the si:m of 40s, and witness' expenses 12s 6d,"