ARBITRATION COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 12570, 11 May 1904, Page 7

ARBITRATION COURT.

The Arbitration- Court, consisting "of His Honor. Mr. Justice Chapman, and Messrs. Brown, and tor, resumed its sittings yesterday at the Muucinal Buildings, being engaged all day in" the hearing of informations in the tailoring triide for breaches of award. •-

BREACH!•>: IN THE TAILORING TRADE.

Mr. Broughton, head of the firm of Messrs. Broughton and Co., tailors, was charged by the inspector of Awards (Mr. H. Ferguson) with employing two girls as apprentices without legally indenturing them. Respondent, who conducted his own case, contended that the girls were not apprentices, but probationers. After hearing the evidence His Honor said that both breaches had been proved. and the Court inflicted a fine of £10 and costs. .. ' ■ - ~i.

Mi. Pospeniskie (for whom Mr. Reed appeared) was charged on the information of the Tailors' Union with using a second workroom, contrary to the award. t The union was represented by Mr. Martin. Mr. Reed admitted that his client had used a second workshop,, until warned by the inspector of awards, When he had ceased to do so. Two girls had been employed by him at their own home because they were unable to leave it, owing to having a bed-riildeii mothe:. Mr. Reed urged that in the circumstances the penalty bo. merely nominal. Judgment was reserved. : B, J, M. Kemp (for whom Mr. Reed ap- ' peared) admitted a breach by employing a girl apprentice not legally indentured. Mr. Reed said that, as in several other cases, this failure to indenture was simply carelessness. No notice had been sent to the masters that indenture was necessary. His Honor said that could not be considered. No notice was. requisite, as the award spoke for itself. ■ A fine of £5 and costs was inflicted, Ilis Honor remarking that it was the duty of employers to find out their responsibilities, and the Court must insist on that. , Messrs. Adams and Bunker pleaded guilty on on information laid by the inspector of awards to paying an employee 17s 6d per week, instead of 21s, for 26 weeks. Sir. Reed, for tho respondents, said that of 10 or 11 employees all but this one wore being paid Strictly in accordance with the award. | It was a case of inadvertence, his clients not ! being aware that the girl's articles had expired. The minimum penalty of £5 Was inflicted, His Honor pointing out that the Court had no alternative, hut that this was one of the cases that would he marked for reconsideration in case it was found that it could be reopened. V M. Miirthie was charged by the Tailors' Union (Mr. Martin]: with giving work to .Tames Clark, ft. coat-hand, to be done at the latter's residence instead of at tho respondent's premises. Mi-. Parr, for the respondent, stated that Clark would not work in a shop, hence the retisofl for work being sent out to him. The parties had thought they were acting legally, having a permit from the ' chairman of the Conciliation Board. The minimum penalty of £5 was inflicted, | together with £2 2s costs, the case to be mark- ' ed a3 one of those that might be reconsidered.,.-," .■

Henry Atkins (for whom Mr. Reed appeared) pleaded not guilty to art information laid by the Tailors' Union (Air. Martin) charging him with a breach of clause 7 of the award, providing for all bespoke work to be made on the premises of the employer. Mr. Reed said the respondent was not a tailor, but & general commission agent, and * was never a party to the award. The Courtfound, on the evidence submitted, that the respondent had entered into a contract for a suit of clothes, and so far as the contract was concerned respondent was the tailor, and the purchaser of the suit his customer. In the circumstances the Court considered thft contract was one of those aimed at in the award, and thought the respondent was answerable under the Act. He was not merely connect With but engaged in the industry in the transaction in question, and the Court considered ho hod committed a breach. A penally of £5 was inflicted, with costs £2 2s. ' ' ' William Chambers (for whom Mr. Reed appeared) was charged; on the information of the inspector of Awards, with not binding a certain employee (Violet Morgan) as an apprentice. Miss Morgan was called, and stated that respondent had asked h"r a short time prior to the expiration of her term of apprenticeship to be> bound, Stid she had refused. The respondent was fined £5. The Tailors' Union charged the same respondent with employing a larger number of apprentices than lie was entitled to employ. The charge was not denied. The minimum pencil? el £5 find cwsts, £1 Is, was inflicted, the case to be marked as olio that might be reconsidered. ' " " " r ~' Meldruto and Brown (for, whom Mr. Reed appeared) admitted a charge laid oh the information of the inspector of awards of employing two girls -as apprentices without indenturing them. Mr. Reed submitted that the breach was merely a technical one, respondents sharing the impression with many others in the trade that it was not necessary to indenture apprentices. His Honor remarked that the Court was constantly meeting with inch lack of knowledge of responsibility in every trade. Respondent was fined £5. * .' ' ' ' Giffprd and Co. (for whom Mr. Reed appeared) pleaded guilty, to .employing a .{oitrncywdman at less Wages than should have been paid to lier for a certain period, through not know ins; when her indentures expired. A fine of £5 was inflicted,, thra case to be marked for possible 1 reconsideration. The Court then udjoliriied until half-past ten a.m. to-day. ~ :