ARBITRATION COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12203, 24 February 1903, Page 7

ARBITRATION COURT.

ALLEGED BREACHES OF AWARD& TWO EMPLOYERS FIXED. The Court of Arbitration—Mr. Justice Cooper (President) and Messrs. Brown ; : ?'nd Slater—flat yestcrtiaj at the Supreme Court E'.V.luuigs. THE FISHCURERS* AWARD. Tho award in the Auckland *ishcurer»' dispute was given. The Court held that the industry was ono in. whM\ fcinploffefs should have a '.vide discretion in the regulation 'it hours, and the principal clauses a. ore as under: —Maximum number of hours for day hands, 55 per week, to be wprked between tho hours of six a.m. and eight p.m. 'l-im Monday till Friday, inclusive, and until viidday on Saturdays; overtime to be pa<;l at the rato of time and a-quarter .'iter eight p.m. until midnight J aftet'' that hb'ir time and a-liatf; Sunday work to be paid at the rato of double time; maximum hours for night workers, 60 hours per weok; minimum wage, £2 5s per week, with tho usual provision for incompetent workmen; praterenco to bo given to unionists. he reqiest of the union that smokers and .-armors be not allowed to work at fish-curing or ether work was disallowed. THE CARPENTERS AND JOINERS' TRADE. Several cases of alleged breaches of award on the part of the masters were brought before the Court b# the Amalgamated Society of Carpe«*crs and Joiners. , . Against thoTonson Garlick Company. Limited : The first was against the Tojison Garlick Company, Limited, and alleged 'hat during the month of June last the firm Cited employed certain of their hands in the making and" fitting up of ft bar counter in the rjttecti s Ferry ftbicK VtWAft Mile, paying lor the Wt>r&>, ra#fcr rale of wages than fixed by rhe award of the Court for carpenters and joiners, thereby creating a breach. Mr. J. C. ; Martin appeared for the union and Mr. Templer for the Tonson Garlick Company. In support of tho allegation Mr. JStttM Stnfcetl that the jjar pillar- ttasS (if work in question w»*, 'carpenters and joiners' work, Liasmuch as the counter was a permanent fix- , ture, regarded as part and parcel of the building, and not movable furniture, such as would come within the scope of cabinetmaking. Charles Fowler, " handyman," and P. Mcintosh, cabinetmaker, in the employ of tho defendant company, were examined on behalf of the union, tho former giving his rate of pay while on tho job and at other times as Is per hour, and the latter as Is Id per hour, Iherate fixed by the Court for cabinetmakers. Mcintosh, who was in charge of the job* said he did hot expect to to paid, carpenters and joiners' wages (Is id per hour) during that time, and regarded tho erection of such counters as cabinetmakers' work. Expert evidence was then called on behalf of the union to show that such work was* regarded as carpenters ( and joiners' work, and not cabinetmakers work. The witnesses also agreed that fixtures were regarded As part Of tho building, only movable furniture being looked upon by "those in the building trade as cabinetmakers' work. When questioned by the Court, they, however, failed to exactly define where tho one class of work would bfgin and the other end, and admitted that it was a very difficult matter .to distinctly draw a line between the two with regard to certain classes of work. Mr. Templer, for tho defendant company, said the firm did not employ carpenters or joiners. The counter had been made on the premises by cabinetmakers and erected by the firm's employees. Such work had always been regarded as cabinetmakers' work, and the firm were not aware that they were in any way coming in confliot with the- carpenters and joiners or creating a breach of the award in that trade. They •were not aware that they were bound by any award applying to the carpenters and joiners in undertaking this particular class of work, which had always been regarded by them as part and parcel of their own trade. Mr. Templer's opening remarks were borne ;>ut by the manager of the defendant company, G. C. Garlick, who stated that the distinction was drawn by cabinetmakers when it came to a question of architraves, windowsashes, doors, staircases, etc., which were regarded as carpenters and joiners' work. Other witnesses U wore -also called for the defence, and gave it as their experience that such work was regarded by the trade as cabinetmakers' work. The Court reserved its decision. . ,

Against J. Patterson: In this case the defendant was charged with a breach of the award by employing a young man named Walter McNulty, who was neither bound as an apprentice .to the carpentering trade nor receiving the rate of wages stipulated by the Court for journeymen carpenters. McNulty, on being examined, stated that he had received 4s per day while in Mr. Patterson's employ, with an extra 2s per week when travelling a distance by rail to work. After hearing further evidence the Court reserved it 3 decision.

Against W. Hutchinson: The union in this instance sought to show that the defendant had discriminated between unionists and nonunionists by discharging two members of the union from his employ during the alterations to Abbott's Opera House, and retaining the services of non-unionists. Mr. Martin was for the union and Mr. Wm. Thome for the defendant (W. Hutchinson, builder and contractor). Tho unionists referred to (John Armitage and M. Beetham) gave evidence as to their dismissal, and for the defence Messrs. W. Hutchinson, T. W. May (foreman on the job), and W. J. Orr (clerk to Mr. Hutchinson) were called. The foreman (Mr. May) said that the men in question had been discharged in the ordinary way owing to the particular work on which they had been engaged having been completed, and not through any, desire to retain non-unionists in preference to unionists. Several other men were discharged a few days later, and would have been discharged simultaneously with Armstrong and Beetham had it not been that immediately after they, (complainants) had been paid off the proprietor of the Opera House ordered certain other work to be done, which necessitated the retention of the other men for a few days. The decision of the Court was reserved. Against the Colonial Sugar Company: In this instance the union sought to show that the defendant company had employed two men at carpentering work during the month of April last, and had failed to pay them the wages fixed by the award of the Court for carpenters. Mr. Martin was for the union, and Mr. C. Buddie for the Colonial Sugar Company. After hearing counsel and evidence on both sides, the Court reserved its decision. THE CARTING TRADE. Against W. -Parsons and Sons: In this instance the Carters' Union (Mr. Martin appearing in support) sought to have the award of the Court enforced with regard to the payment of the minimum wage to carters in the employ of defendants. Defendants, *vho did not appear in Court, admitted paying a lower rate (£2 2s) than that fixed (£2 6s), and in all instances the Court ordered the difference to be paid covering the time the men were in tho employ, together with certain overtime due. A. fine of £2 was also inflicted for non-compliance with the award, tho amount to be paid to the Carters' Union, and defendants were ordered to pay costs. Against Cunningham and Co. : This was an application for tho enforcement of the payment by defendants of overtime. Mr. Cotter appeared for the defendants, "and Mr. Davis (secretary) conducted the case for the union. For the dofence.it was contended that Messrs. Cunningham and Co. wore not bound by clause 3 of the award fixing the number of hours, but were protected oy clause 20, which made special provision in tho direction of the regulation of hours by employers whose employees are engaged in meeting early and late trains and boats arriving at and leaving the port of Onehunga. Mr. Davis, for the union, said lie purposed calling evidence to show that the men were otherwise employed when waiting for boats and trains, and were therefore fully occupied during tho regular working hours. Mr. Cottoi pointed out that the citation was not complete and in order, and as a consequence he was not prepared to meet the case on 'certain points that were likoly to be raised. His Honor agreed that such wad the case, and ordered that all reasonable information should be furnished to the counsel for tho defence within three clays, in ordoi that the hearing might be proceeded with on the return of the Court to Auckland in the course of a few days. His Honor also expressed the opinion that tho contention of counsel foi the defence, that Messrs. Cunningham and Co. wore protected in the matter of hours by clause 20, was sound. ' ' . Against . the Auckland Parcel Delivory Company: The union preferred several charges against the defendant company, of paying carters in then employ a less sum than the minimum wage fixed in the award. Aft© hearing evidence, tho Court decided that "only one charge had been proven, that being in the case of a carter named Lockley, who was employed on The soale fixed for'light carting, and had been doing heavy carting work. As Lockley was unable to definitely fix the time during which be had

been employed by the firm, afld was entitled to the increased rate of pay, the Court imposed a fine. His Honor said there had dearly been a breach of the award, and the penalty would therefore be a substantial one. The defendant company Was ordered to pay £10 to the union—to be dealt With as the union thought fit— costs. Against John Peach: This was also an application for enforcement of payment of the minimum rate of wages for heavy carting. Several witnesses were examined, all of WhClll waM in the. employ of defendant. One of these gave ills wages as £1 16s per week, and the others as £1 and found. They stated that they had been employed as general farm hands, and to do carting when necessary. It was stated on behalf of the union that Jit the rsttft of .wages paid Mr. Peach was unfairly competing against other employers paying the minimum Wage fixed by the Court. The decision of the Court was reserved. Other" Appliwtwns: Applications for breaches of the award" against John Schischka and P. J. Nerheny, ill that they erasßyefl men in heavy carting at Uaht carting rates of pa", were" referred to the chairman of the Board of Conciliation to inquire as to the nature of the work lii which they were engaged, and report to the Court at its next sitting in Auckland. The, hearing will then bo proceeded with if the report indicates that the provision of the award | {lave n«fe bfett eomplied with. THE HHlMßifflffiFS' AWARD. . ,

Applications in connection fftth alleged breaches of the award in the shipwrights' dispute were lodged against Messrs. Logan Bros., C. Bailey, jun., Bailey and Lowe, and R. Logan, sen., by the representatives of the workers' union. His Honor intimated that tho informations were not in order, inasmuch as separato citations had net been made in the case of each employer charged; in accardahe** with tho Act. He further pointed out that in all such Cases reasonable information should be forwarded to the employers as to the nature of the charges and the approximate dates of the alleged breaches. In view of these irregularities, the Court struck out the informations without predudice, intimating that they could be laid afresh. The Court then adjourned, and will sit again in Auckland on Friday forenoon next.