BREACHES OF AWARDS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 13701, 18 March 1908, Page 8

BREACHES OF AWARDS.

■ •■ ; «».., ——. ' ARBITRATION COURT FINES. [BY TELEGRAPH.PRESS ASSOCIATION'.] Wellington, Tuesday. The Huddart-Parker Company was charged, at the Arbitration Court yesterday with a breach of the wharf labourers' award by engaging men at a place other than that stipulated by. the award. The company admitted that a breach of the award had been committed, but the question at issue was who was responsible. The company had a stevedore, who was partly a servant of theirs, and written instructions had been conveyed to him that the provisions of the award should be strictly observed. This the stevedore had failed ,to do. The stevedore said that the employment of labour on the wharves; was very unsatisfactory. Fourdays out of six, owing to the scarcity which existed, men had to be engaged all over the wharf. The stevedore, Charles Wadley, was fined £2 and costs, and the' case against the company was withdrawn. " " ;•; Fines were inflicted in the following cases:—Alfred Palmer, Kahvarra, failing to indenture an apprentice, £5 and costs; Townsend; and O'SuUivan, breach of the tinplate workers' . award by not. legally I indenturing two apprentices, £5; James | Johnston, livery stable keeper, breach of the drivers' award by employing nonunioiu.;ts_ when unionists were available, £5; Elizabeth Evans, breach of the tailoreSßes' award by leaving her employers (C. Cathie and Sons) without giving sufficient notice, 5s ; W % P. Laws, employing a carpenter at less than the award rate of pay without a permit, £3; J. and 0. Ritchie, breach of the furniture trades award by employing Benjamin Johnston as a journeyman machinist and polisher at a less rate than that prescribed by the I award, £2., An employee, Dairy Ford, ! was charged with a breach of the tailors' award in that lie took an order for a suit of clothes and bad the garments made in a manner contrary to the provisions of the award, which provides that all " bespoke" work must be done in the shop of the employer for whom it is performed, and for whom or by whom the , order is taken. A line of £2 was imposed. Rhimes and Co., for a breach of the tailors' award in connection with " bespoke" work, were fined £2 and costs. To-day hues were imposed as follows m connection with breaches of the carpenters and joiners' award: —Howie and Matthews, employing an unindentured apprentice, £2 and costs; R. Wakeliu and Sons, similarly charged, £2 and costs. A. Wilkening. for employing a man at under-rate wages without a permit, £5; J. W. Chapman Taylor, employing a, youth for a longer period of probation than was provided for without being duly apprenticed. £2 and costs; executors of Halt Udy, similarly charged, £2 and costs; H. Young, employing a man without a permit, at less than the award rate, £5 and costs (the workman concerned was fined 10s for failing to have a permit); H. Crump, employing an apprentice not duly indentured. £2 and costs: K. fc}. Knight, failing to allow a discharged employee two hours to put his tools in Older, £1; C. Smith, breach of the tailors' award in connection with provisions relating to bespoke work, £5. The New Zealand Times was charged with employing certain feeders at making-ready on jobs contrary to flu: provisions of the typographical award, and was fined £3 and costs. C. M, Banks and Co., similarly charged in respect to the letterpress machinists' award, were fined £5 and costs. H. D. Crawford, for failing to observe the preference clause of the general labourers' award, was fined £3 and costs.