ARBITRATION COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12210, 4 March 1903, Page 6

ARBITRATION COURT.

APPLICATIONS FOR enforcement OF AWARDS.

The sittings of "the Arbitration Court—Mr, Justice .; Cooper (President) and Messrs. Brown and Slater— continued yesterday at the Supreme Court. THE CARPENTERING TRADE. His Honor first gave the decisions of the Court in connection with several' applications for enforcement of awards made cby representatives of tho Carpenters' and Carters' .Unions. ■ - . v _ Against John Patterson: In this case the defendant,-: a.'builder, admitted a breach of the award in the carpentering trade by employing a young man 1 named McNulty at a lower . rate of wages than that provided by the award-for journeymen carpenters. The Court inflicted, a penalty of £3 for the breach, and charged defendant with solicitor's fees £2 2s, and Court costs. . Against the Tonson , Garlick Company : The Carpenters and Joiners' Society, in this case, 1 alleged that the Tonson Garlick Company had committed a breach of the award in the carpentering and joinery trade by employing men on joining work at a lower rate of pay than that provided in the award. Considerable evidence was given, the carpenters' representatives on the one hand contending that the work was joinery, and the representatives and witnesses. of the Tonson Garlick Company, on the other hand, that it was cabinetmaking work. His Honor now intimated that the evidence was so conflicting that it was impossible for the Court to discriminate between the two trades in the particular class of work mentioned in the dispute, and consequently the Court could not make an order. Against the Colonial Sugar Company: The defendant company was charged with a breach of the carpentering award by employing two carpenters at less than the minimum wage prescribed by the award. The two men referred to are : weekly servants of the company, ancT receive '£2 163 per week of 4-7 hours. His Honor pointed out that the company carried on business as sugar refiners at Chelsea. . They employed a very large number of men, , among ■ them the two men in question.' These men were on the regular staff of the company,, their duty being to do such carpentering work about the refinery and works as might be from time to time required. In the opinion of the Court, Mr. Martin's contention that these facts brought the company, by virtue of the; Act, under the award, and that they were, because they employed two carpenters among a staff of some 200 men to do work which was only incidental to their business of sugar refiners, " connected with or engaged in the industry to which the award related," could not be sustained. The application would therefore be dismissed, the : union to , pay £2 2s costs to the company. ' ; THE CARTING TRADE. Against John Peach: Defendant was charged with a breach of the award in the carting trade by employing certain farm hands in his'service in carting at a lower rate of wages than the minimum fixed by the award. The men were in receipt general farm hands and cartersof £1 per week and board, while the minimum fixed for carters boarded by their employers is £1 lis. The ■Court held that the defendant had committed a breach of the award, and inflicted fines totalling £12 13s, • no order being made as to what the union should do with the money. Court costs, amounting to £2 2s, and other expenses, were also inflicted. • ' Against P. J. Nerheny: In this case the Court, after hearing certain evidence, referred the question to the chairman of the Conciliation Board (the Rev. Geo. Burgess) to report on an allowed breach of award by defendant in employing P. O'Hara at heavy carting on light-carting wages. • The chairman of the Board now reported that in his opinion O'Hara had been engaged on light work, in accordance with olause 8 of the award. The application of the workers' union was therefore dismissed by the Court. Against John Schischka: This was a similar application to that made in the case of P. J. Nerheny, and was also referred to the chairman of the Conciliation Board to report. This stilted that the men, who, it was alleged, had been employed at heavy carting on lightcarting wages, had left the colony, and that there was not sufficient evidence available to show what class of carting the men had been engaged, in. In view of the report the Court made no order. , , *" Against /.Cunningham ;and Co.: llie 'defendants ii'ere charged with a breach of the award with regard to the payment of overtime. ' The secretary of the union now intimated to, the Court in writing that a settlement of ; the difficulty had been arrived at, and asked that the union bo allowed to withdraw the application. The Court consented to the withdrawal.

' THE PLUMBING TRADE. r "'Against John Macpberson: This was an application for enforcement of the award in the plumbing trade, which, it was alleged, defendant had broken by employing Sidney Burgess at a lower rate: of wage* than the sum provided for by clause 2 of the award. Mr. J. 0. Martin appeared for the union and defendant appeared in person. The evidence in support was to the effect that Burgess was only receiving £1 10s per week, while for the defence Mr. Macpherson stated that the lad. who had previously been in the employ of his 'brother at Dunedin, was practically., completing his apprenticeship. Witness "thought he was conforming with the award' in so employing Burgess,-, and in answer >to , the Court said ;ho would be quit© willing sto indenture him . for the balance of the. term. /, ; The Court held that there had been ; a breach, and inflicted a; fine of 4-Os, costs. £2 2s, also.£2 2s, solicitor's, fees, ' Court fees, j and witnesses' • expenses. Against jMessrs. F. and W. ' Fowler: The defendants (master plumbers) ; were charged with a .breach of the award, by paying three journeymen! plumbers in their'''employ a lower rate- of wages, than the sum (Is ' 2d', per hour) fixed by' the award.. Mr. Martin appeared for, the union and Mr. F. Fowler for the defendant 'firm. ; Evidence in support was given by .the' employees mentioned, who Stated that they had received Is 2d per hour on outside work and 'Is for indoor work.. • They regarded the greater, part of the work they did inside' as plumbing, work: For the defence "Mr," Fowler contended that the indoor work was manufacturing and rot- what could .be regarded 'as plumbing ;, ' In this case the Court reserved judgment.'-'' ;• Against • Messrs. t McLeod and • Green: Defendants were ; charged with a breach of the award in ; having intheir. employment on a certain?date an;,' apprentice -not legally in-' detnured, as provided for by the award. Mr. Martin appeared in support; and Mr. Parr represented defendants. ./After the hearing of evidence ,on 'both sides, in the course of which it was stated that .the boy had been indentured shortly, after a summons had been served, . Mr. Parr contended that the defendants had complied with the requirements of the award by legally indenturing: within a reasonable lapse of time '. from the expiration of his term of probation. Nothing had been adduced to show that any previous notice: had been ; served on the defendants. His Honor intimated that the Court would take time to consider the question. ■ Against D. and .T. Miller: The defendants were charged with - a breach of the award by employing W. Gunson as an apprentice on plumbing work,'the said Gunson not being a legally-indentured apprentice. , -Mr. Martin was for the union and Mr. Parr for the defendants. - Mr. Parr held that the boy had been apprenticed', under the old industrial agreement operating before the award came into force, and that this made no provision for his being indentured. ■ Mr. Martin 'said the ■union's ,v sole desire -was toft settle the question as to-whether the lad should .be legally indentured, which they believed should-have been done in view of the date of the • engagement of Gunson. His Honor suggested that, the difficulty might be overcome if defendants would consent to indenture the boy . and . pay ; him according to the award." . This ; course was agreed : to, and the case was then struck out.,- ' THE TAILORING TRADE. : Against T. McConnoir'and F. Morgan and Sons:"; The Court gave its decision in the case of 5 these two employers, who had admitted the facts in connection with an alleged breach of the industrial agreement. - The Court held the cases proven, and in McConnell's case a 'fine of 40s anc'. costs was inflicted, while in Morgan's case defendant was ordered to pay the union, costs amounting to £1 10s. • " •' Against George Fowlds: The defendant was charged - with a breach of the industrial agreement in the tailoring trade by failing to comply with paragraph 7, which provides that garments supplied as tailor-made (order work) shall be made on the premises of the employer talcing the order. Mr. Martin represented the Tailors' Union and Mr./ Cotter was for the r defendant. For the defence it was contended that Mr. Fowlds had retired from the business as a merchant tailor, and only carried out chart orders.; It was, however, admitted that the 'garments, after being partially made at the. factory, were sent, back to Sir. Fowlds',;: shop, when it was tried on, chalked, etc., and then sent back to be completed. His /Honor. said, without . committing himself to an, opinion ,on'. the matter, he - had .always' been .under / the impression that ("chart, garments ■ were those for 'which charts ; for self measurement were sent some distance away, measurements taken by a nontailor, and orders sent to' the; shop.. * The garments'were then completed and sent back to the purchaser without any fitting. on,' said purchaser.- taking /all responsibility as to fit. The point 'in the case before the . Court was as: to vwhether the party selling , the} garments was ; allowed? to intercept / them ( during/ the course of manufacture., The. Court reserved its decision. . ,