BUILDERS SUED

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23058, 8 June 1938, Page 18

BUILDERS SUED

NON-UNIONIST LABOUR BREACH OF AWARD ALLEGED COMMENT BY MAGISTRATE JUDGMENT FOR INSPECTOR [from our own* correspondent] HAMILTON, Tuesday A case of interest to employers ancl unionists was heard in tho Hamilton Magistrate's Court to-day, when Lewis • and Curling, builders, of Hamilton, and P. 6. Howell, builder, of Hamilton, were sued by Mr, F. A. Wood, inspector of awards, for the recovery of a penalty of £lO each for employing non-unionist carpenters, Mr. H. J. McMullin appeared for the defendants and contested the case. No evidence was called, the facts being admitted. Mr. Wood said that since the carpenters' award came into force on November 8, 1937, the defendants had employed two men, Norman Anderson and Samutl Robert Middlebrook. At the time neither man was a member of the union, but Anderson joined later. Plaintiff's Submission The inspector submitted that defendants had acted unlawfully in continuing to employ the two men after the award came into effect while they remained non-unionists. Mr. McMullin submitted that there had been no breach of the award and if there had been the breach had been so trivial that the information should be dismissed. Counsel contended that as there was a distinct shortage of carpenters in Hamilton it was incumbent on the inspector or the union to produce capable, experienced union tradesmen to take the place of tho non-unionists. Tho fact was that such men were not available. Both Anderson and Middlebrook, counsel continued, were capable men. Middlebrook was a leading hand, and was a truly conscientious objector to being forced to join a union. Middlebrook had said ho would leave tho trade rather than submit to compulsion. The union had known this all along. When Howell took on Anderson he did not know he was a nonunionist. Case Without Justification Mr. McMullin said that carpenters' labourers were becoming members of the carpenters' union. All and sundry were being accepted. Counsel contended that the proceedings were without justification. Mr. Wood said provision had been made for the issue of a ticket certifying in the case of a conscientious objector that the worker had contributed to the funds for charitable purposes. | While there might be a shortage of skilled tradesmen in Hamilton, he added, there was a surplus in Auckland. Mr. McMullin replied that the Builders' Association had advertised for carpenters. Only a few capable men had replied, and they wanted country rates of pay for work in Hamilton and other concessions not provided for in the award. Conscientious.. Obiectors The magistrate, Mr. S; L. Paterson, asked if' there waa . any provision in the union rules for contiibutions by recognised conscientious objectors. . Mr Wood replied that the Minister of Labour, the Hon. H. T. Armstrong, had advised unions to admit conscientious objectors in this way. The Magistrate: That is all very well, but if the union rules do not provide for it then it is not in order - Mr. Wood: They may be committing a broach. i -The Magistrate: Then/they are get-, ting tho money by false pretences. Mr. Wood: There is.no provision in the rules so far as I know. The whole of the men's subscriptions are devoted to charitable purposes. In giving judgment the magistrate said the case presented a certain amount of difficulty, .which T\as not made better by tho fact that there was no evidence before the Court. The Court should have the whole of the facts before it and hear the evidence of witnesses, so that, it could judge the weight of that evidence. It was not a fair thing to rely on bare admMr?nPaterson said it seemed to him that there had been a breach, but at the same time it seemed to be tr Judgment was given for plaintiff for Is in respect of each case.