ARBITRATION COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 11877, 31 January 1902, Page 6

ARBITRATION COURT.

BREACHES OF AWARDS. The Arbitration Court sat at the Supreme Courthouse yesterday. His Honor Mr. Justice Cooper presided, and -Messrs. R. Brown arid T. Slater were also present. SADDLERS' DISPUTE. , ■ .■ -' The Auckland Saddlers' Union asked that the award in their case be: enforced against John T. Knight. Mr. J. R. Reed appeared for the defendant, an- Mr. J. C. Martin for tho union. Mr. Reed asked for an adjournment, as the saddlers concerned were busy with orders for the contingents. He pointed out that Mr. Martin had:' no objection. His Honor said that the hearing would have to stand over till May next. Mr. Martin said that lie appeared in this case and all the other saddlers cases. The employees at the present tune were under great pressure in fulfilling orders for the use of the South > Africa . contingents. He asked that the case be dealt with before the Court left for the South. His Honor said ho must deal with the case, as the Court had to be in ~ Wellington by the end of next week. . , -Ultimately His Honor said be would adjourn the cases till Monday, February 10, at half-past ten a.m., and take them if the pressure of business was relieved by then, and if not they must stand over as stated before. - CARPENTERS AND JOINERS' ■ DISPUTES. ,

John Davis, builder, was charged with committing two breaches of the "award of the Court in the carpenters and joiners' dispute by employing William John Gatensby and Thomas Hoklsworth at less rates of wage than. was prescribed by the award. ; _ Mr. J. C. Martin appeared for the union in both cases, which were taken together, and Mr. Davis conducted his own case, and denied the charges. , Mr. Martin said that these were simple cases of workmen receiving less than the prescribed wage. Mr. Davis had been communicated with by the union and had given a denial to the charges. William Thomas Gatensby, carpenter, resident in Vincent-street, said he entered Davis employ in December, 1900.; Defendant asked what wages ho required, and he replied 10s a day. Defendant said later on that witness was not capable, as witness had not been used to such fine work a3 he was required to do. Defendant said he would give him 30s a week. Witness worked for this wage, and en leaving defendant's employ in June last was receiving 36s a week. " ; Witness was ; not a unionist, and had not received a permit from the union to work for a less wage than the schedule rate. Witness was now working in the country, and receiving 9s a day. _ By Mr. Davisc Witness landed in the colony in 1895, and had had no carpentering knowledge prior to landing in the colony. Witness had asked for employment from defendant in order that he might gain experience. . John Davis was examined by air. Martin. He said he knew Hoidsworth, who entered his employ in December 1900, and remained there six'months. Hoidsworth received 30s a woek on starting, and after three months had elapsed received 36s a week. The man had no permit from the union to work for less than tho prescribed wage. Witness had his own interpretation of the award, and made no inquiries as to whether tho man had a permit, as he considered that he had no right to. Hoidsworth was a young man at the time, trying to learn carpentering, and witness entered into a verbal contract with him to teach him. Hoidsworth was about 21 years of age, and war taken on at his brother's request, and witness agreed to do the best he could for him. Holdsworth left witnoss'? employ after seven months, after having been reprimanded about laziness and pipe-smoking on the job he was engaged on. Witness had been communicated with by the union with regard to the alleged breaches of the award.

James Bowles, carpenter and joiner, was called by defendant and said Holdsworth was merely engaged with a view of his learning the trade. The lad had made no complaint as to his wages. Mr. Davis did not get the usual benefit of an employer in teaching the lad. ■■:■ William Henry said Holdsworth had been employed by him prior to December, 1900, as a learner and improver, at 30s per week. Witness did not ask Holdsworth whether he had a permit and did not employ any workmen after that without permits. \ William Whitfield also gave evidence. 'Mr. Davis said the charges were the out-! come of animosity borne towards him by the union for the part he took in the carpenters' dispute When it was beforo the Conciliation Board. His Honor said there was no evidence of this, and it was not for the Court to deal with animosity shown, but with the facts of the case. He could not allow this, and it could not be considered. ; Mr. Davis said he had been persecuted by the union. .' His' Honor said the union corresponded with defendant on both charges, and had not received a satisfactory reply, and had dealt with the matter at a special meeting. Mr. Davis said it had been put to him that he' had employed journeymen below the minimum rate of wa.ge, and he denied that he employed journeymen in these cases. He submitted that he had committed no breach of the spirit of the Act. Ho had always treated his employees liberally, and had never encroached on their rights. His Honor intimated that the Court would give its decision on Saturday morning. . BOOTMAKERS' DISPUTES. Messrs. A. and G. Brook were charged by the Auckland Operative Bootmakers' Union with committing a breach of the award of the Court by employing three henchmen and paying them by piecework instead of by weekly wage. Mr. Martin said Mr. Brook admitted that.; he had undoubtedly committed a breach of the award, and he could - say nothing in justification of it. Defendant held strong opinions with regard to last award concerning piecework from an employee's point of view, and considered that the men could do much better on piecework than by weekly wage, and therefore continued to employ the men on piecework, but really for their own benefit. Since the proceedings had been taken, defendant had paid the weekly wage, and had gone further than that. He had told his men to go on after with the piecework, and had given them a bonus by way of encouragement, and they were thus enabled to bring their wages up to an average of £2 7s a week.

His Honor said the abolition of piecework was one of the strong claims made by the employers themselves, and it had been agreed to by both parties that it was best for them. It must therefore be. assumed that the employers knew what they, were about, and defendant was one of the Masters' Association. The Court felt that in view of the amount of costs incurred they should only inflict a nominal penalty. A fine of 20s and costs, £10 16s 3d, was imposed. .'

; Albert Hughes was charged with not giving preference of employment to unionists, and with employing a finisher at less than the minimum wage. '

Mr. Jas. Aggers, representing the union, said the union had written defendant stating that two of his employees had refused to join the union, and pointing out that the award gave power to the union to replace them with unionists equally as good, and had not received satisfaction.

Defendant said lie was not a member of the Masters' Association. Ho had paid the non-union men employed by him the same wage as the union men, and did not consider that it made any difference. The union had never tendered him men equally as good as the men that they, complained of. His Honor said the union would have to prove that they tendered a better man or men equally as good to the defendant. In answer to His Honor defendant said about that time ho had applied to the union for two finishers, but did not get any reply. He then advertised end had to obtain a finisher from Palmerston North. James Aggers deposed that he had sent two competent union men to the defendant for employment, which they did not obtain. It was along time after tho correspondence that : passed that the defendant sent for man to the union. *

, His Honor pointed out that the defendant was committing a breach of _ the award by continuing to employ non-unionists. Defendant said he had no objection to his employees joining the union. , . His Honor suggested as this* was the .first case of its kind before the Court in respect of this clause, that the parties meet and arrange tho matter amicably. %. ["■■: This was agreed to and the case was adjourned till Monday, , February 10. Coles and Co.'were charged with three breaches of tho award of the Court by cmploying machinists at a lower rate of wage than tho minimum prescribed by the award without having first obtained the necessary permit. Mr. J. 0. Martin appeared for the defendants and Mr. Aggers for the union. Evidence was* given by the .-;'. employees concerned as to their employment by the defendant at less than the schedule rates without having obtained the neocssarv permits from the chairman of the Conciliation Board. In cross-examination by \ Mr. » Martin, one of the witnesses- admitted that "he had been requested ' several times ; by Mr; Coles! to' obtain the renewal of his permit, which had expired, but had neglected to do 80. . V,.'"'"- }:,:■ -.'.";■'■•. • '■•'■''•!

Mr. Martin ■ said the facts .of ■ the .: case were :•; not' disputed. In , the first case '; defendant \ had shown groat consideration ■ for the employee concerned, and the ::- negligence lay with' the employee, who had been' with him for some time. In the second case defendant had f misconstrued > the meaning of the section of the award that applied, \- In the third case the employee was not wholly employed 'at: one ';■ particular branch of the trade, and Mr. Coles was at a loss to; class him "under'..the award.

Mr. Coles ? then gave evidence. Mr. Martin raised the point as to whether brie Vof (■ the - employees ■'; (Strong) came I under the award at all, because it was shown that he did a special class of work, which was neither finishing, clicking, nor making, and he'-submitted-;that- the award did not apply in his case at all.

'■;, His Honor said he would take time to consider the case of the employee Strong, as the contention that he was > not employed as '.' a machinist, but on;' special; : ' work, ; and therefore was not provided for ; under the award, was an important one, and required consideration. The Court would give its decision on. a date to be intimated. ,