THE ENGINEERS' DISPUTE

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 12736, 13 December 1904, Page 6

THE ENGINEERS' DISPUTE

The engineers' dispute, was first called on. Mr. J. Fa wens appeared on behalf of the employees, and Messrs. T. T. Masctieid. Whitsou, MeCroskie, and U. Eraser on behalf of the engineering firms. Mr. Masefield said the case would occupy some time, as all the clauses were in dispute. Ho also suggested that, as the ironmoulders had called their employers, and asked for different hours ami conditions, the two eases should be heard at one time.

Mr. Fawcus protested against an adjournment, saying that the case had already been adjourned from the last tilting. The President said that the fact of the rase being defective was the cause of the adjournment. After the Court had consulted, the President announced that the Court did not think it could satisfactorily deal with the ease at tho present sitting, but that it would be given preference at the regular sitting in February. It was not. thought reasonable to make an award in the engineers' case without the ironmoulders' case being first hoard, as it must be seen that the hours, and possibly some other conditions, did no' overlay*. Th* awards would be separate, but ir» some respects the two eases, in the interests of the trade, should be considered together. ,

Mr. Thos. White (kauri Timber Company) said that the engineers employed in the timber trade were already working under the sawmillers' award; he therefore asked that the sawmillers bo discharged from the citation.

The President said that thft sawmillere would not be required to attend unless notified to do so.

Mr. Atkin asked that the Cousins and Atkin Carriage Factory be exempted von the case, as the company, did no engineering work.

The President said this would be a question to be determined by evidence.

BREACHES OF AWARDS.

Wiseman and Sons were charged with committing a breach of the saddlers' award by employing a greater number of apprentices than allowed by the award. Mi. Wiseman, who admitted'the offence, said that ho had not been aware of the breach a the time, but that as soon as it was pointed out he complied with the law. Mr. Ferguson, the inspector, said that tour boys in excess of the number allowed had been employed on at least, three days. The President said that the case would not be treated as a wilful one. but it was an instance of neglect which could not be passed over. Foremen in charge of factories should see that the awards were strictly complied with. A fine of £2 and costs was imposed. William Hooker, Symonds-street, was charged with committing a breach of the grocers' award on Saturday, July 23 last, by keeping, an assistant at. work * after ton o'clock. The defendant said that on the occasion in question his chief assistant, who was paid more than the wage specified in the award, was in the shop after ten o'clock for the purpose of attending to the few odds and ends which were neccs.sarj after closing time, and which did not usually occupy more than a quarter of an hour. When he was attending to these duties a woman came to the shop to make a small purchase', and the assistant admitted her. The inspector walked in at the same time. He submitted that only a technical breach had lieen committed. The President said that it was not shown that, it was absolutely necessary to keep the man in the shop after ten o'clock, and the Court could not recognise any such necessity. Defendant was fined £2 anc expenses. Andrew Wortbington admitted having committed a breath of the tailors' award by taking orders for garments and causing them to be made up at other than his own premises. The defendant said that he had only recently gone into business, and at the time of the breach ho was not aware of the conditions of the award. He had afterwards gone into partnership with the man to whom he had given out the work. The President said that when a man went into business, it was his duty to make himself acquainted with the provisions of the law, and the award governing his trade. Ignorance in such a case could not be admitted as an excuse. A fine of £5 and costs was imposed.

A NON-UNIONIST FINED. Thomas Woods, a non-unionist, was charged with committing a breach of the saddlers' award by knowingly working for a less rate than that specified by tho award. Wiseman and Sons were also charged with a breach of the award in respect to the same matter. Mr. Brockfield. who appeared for Woods, said that the latter denied having knowingly worked for less than the specified award, but the fact, that he had worked for £2 2s a week, instead of £2 Bs, was admitted. When Woods found he was receiving less than the minimum, he asked if a permit had to be obtained, and way informed that the matter was being attended to. Mr. Wiseman stated that it had been intended to pay Woods tho minimum, but a mistake had been made by the olerk in m akin sr up the wages. Woods had received the full amount of his back pay. Tho President said that when-the defendant was put on his guard he had ample opportunities of making full inquiries into the matter, but he had failed to proper!v ascertain his position. A fine of £1 was imposed on Woods, and also on the employers, the latter being made lighter in view of the fact that back wages had been paid, which the Court could not have ordered. CASE FOR INTERPRETATION. A case for interpretation was brought by the Saddlers' Union (Mr. Skelton), against Knight, Love and Company (Mr. Reed)., in respect, to a clause in the- award which stipulated that one stitcher should bo employed for every three, or fraction of three, journeymen. In the case of tho defendants, six journeymen and two " incompetent journeymen" (i.e., men working for less than the minimum wage, under permits) were employed, and there were three stitchers. The point to be- determined was whether the "incompetent journeymen" could be taken into account in fixing the number of stitchers. The Court decided this question in the negative, and decided that a breach of the award had been committed. A fine of £1 and costs was imposed. The Court then adjourned till half-past ten a.m. on Friday next.