AN EMPLOYER FINED.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 11879, 3 February 1902, Page 7

AN EMPLOYER FINED.

BREACH OF AS ARBITRATION COURT

AWARD. The Arbitration Court gave judgment on Saturday morning in the case brought by tinCarpenters and Joiners' Union against -JomiDavis, for breach of an award by employ in d two men at a lower rate of wages than prescribed by the award without having a permit from the union. Mr. Justice Cooper, m giving judgment on behalf of the Court, said the facts were not in dispute; the two men were employed by defendant at less than the minimum wage without a permit, in defence was that Mr. Davis was justified in employing them as they were learners improvers. Neither of them wcro apprentices. The award by which Mr. Davis was bound did not require : indentures, , but _it required a five years' term of apprenticeship, and tho Court was of opinion that there was no agreement by which the men agreeu to stay on tho ono side, or Mr. Davis agreed to keep them for five years. On the contrary defendant admitted that he took them on a verbal agreement that he was to allow them to improve themselves. They were rough carpenters, and would in all probability nac. application been made to the union, have been allowed to work at loss than the minimum wage. The Court was of opinion that a breach of the award had been committed. The award gave lip power to employ improvers, and although the award had expired, an industrial agreement was made a few weeks ago which was signed by Mr. Davis, and up to that time no improvers were considered necessary by the trade. The breach had been committed, but in the opinion 01 the Court it was not of a very serious nature. The trouble was duo to the failure of Mr. Davis to give the secretary of the union an} information at all as to tho conditions under which the men were employed. The letters submitted by the secretary of the union were very proper letters. They asked for an explanation and for reasons, which were refused. The suggestion therefore that- the union was not justified in taking these proceedings, and that it was a case of persecution, was, in the opinion of the Court, quite fallacious. The Court ordered defendant to pay 20sthis being the first case of a breach of the carpenters' award—and to pay the costs of the union, two guineas for their solicitor's costs, and other costs which they properly were put to 111 bringing tho case into Court. The Court considered they had dealt very leniently with tho defendant._ but if other eases of breaches of awards, either 011 the part of the masters or the men, were brought before the Court, they would lie treated in a very much more severe manner. The Court was empowered and directed by the Legislature to settle the conditions of labour. When these conditions wore settled both masters and men must obey them, and tho only way they could bo_ compelled to obey was by tho Court enforcing the awards with proper penalties when they were broken. In all proper eases where the circumstances showed a deliberate breach of an award tho Court would in future inflict severe penalties, and it should bo distinctly understood that not only might the masters be liable, but tho unions themselves might, under certain circumstances, bo liable in the case of any of their members working without permit for less than the union wage. It should be distinctly understood that the Court would treat failure on the part of masters or men to obey the conditions of awards as an offence of .1 very high degree. The' Legislature had provided penalties, and the present members of. the Court, so long as they held their pre-, sent positions, would not allow either mas-, ters or men to treat tho awards as mere conventions which could be broken at will on either side.