ENFORCING TRADE AWARDS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1354, 10 February 1898, Page 13

ENFORCING TRADE AWARDS.

There was an important conversation at the Arbitration Court on Thursday on the subject of enforcing the Court’s awards. After the award in the baking trade dispute had been given, Mr Thomas Hogg, on behalf of the Operative Bakers’ Union, put a question in regard to damages for breaches of the award of the Court.

Mr Justice Williams, President of the Court, said he could not see that the Conciliation and Arbitration Act gave the Court any j urisdiction to fix damages for a breach of an award.

Mr Hogg: Then what action can oUr Union take if the employers commit a breach of this award ?

His Honor: That lam unable to say. I have looked into the Act for the express purpose of seeing if a penalty could be imposed in the award for a breach of it. I do not think there is any provision in the Act for inserting such a provision in the award. It would in one sense be unreasonable. The same penalty would be inapplicable to every breach of the award. It would not be fair to fix the same penalty for a slight as for a more serious breach.

Mr Hogg: Then this award can be broken with impunity ? His Honor: You had better consult your legal advisers about that. But I hope there will be no such question. I trust the parties will loyally act up to the award.

Mr Andrew Collins, the other representative of the Union, said there had been breaches of awards by employers in Wellington. The unions get one opinion from one lawyer and another from another on the matter. His Honor : There is no doubt that the provisions of the Act in some cases are exceedingly indistinct. The Act requires amendment, especially in respect to the clauses that relate to the enforcing of awards.

In Chambers at the Supreme Court on Friday, Mr Justice Edwards gave his reserved judgment in the matter of a summons laid against Messrs Veitch and Allan, of Cuba street, by the Wellington Tailors’ Industrial Union, under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

Argument was heard in the matter on Tuesday, when Mr Hindmarsh appeared for the Union and Sir Robert Stout for ihe respondents. The matters in controversy between the Union and Messrs Yeitch and Allan are the proportion of apprentices to journeymen . and the rate which the journeymen in the employ of the firm are charged for the machine-sewing in connection with pockets. His Honor said this was a summons purporting to be issued under the provisions of the Act calling upon Messrs Veitch and Allan to show cause why they should not be ordered to pay a penalty of .£SOO to such public officer or to such person or persons as the Judge should direct, upon the ground that the respondents hid been guilty of certain breaches of an industrial agreement entered into under the provisions of the Act. The alleged breaches were denied, anda preliminary objection was raised by the respondents that the Supreme | Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The agreement in respect of which the proceeding was taken did not in itself contain any provision tor penalties, and the proceeding was founded upon section 22 of the Act, which provided that every person bound by an industrial agreement who should commit or suffer a breach thereof should for every such breach'be guilty of an offence against the Act, punishable by a penalty not exceeding such amount as should be fixed by such agreement, and if no amount should be fixed then not exceeding <£soo; and upon section 23, which provided that part 111. of the Act, with reference to the enforcement of awards, should apply to the enforcement of industrial agreements and of penalties thereunder. The respondents contended that the penalty sought to be recovered was not a penalty under the agreement within the meaning of section 23, but that it was a penalty imposed by the statute in respect of an offence against the statute, and was only recoverable by proceedings under the Justices of the Peace Act, as provided by section 89. In his opinion this contention must prevail. He thought the penalties under an industrial agreement, to come within the meaning of section 23, must be penalties which the agreement itself provided should be pay-

able to some party to the agreement in respect of breaches of its conditions. Moneys payable in respect of such penalties •would, as provided by section 81, belong to the persons to whom they were made payable by the agreement. Penalties imposed by the statute in respect of the offence created by the statute, and not by agreement of the parties as between themselves, stood upon a different footing. It appeared to be unquestionable that these might, by virtue of section 89, be recovered by proceedings under the Justices of the Peace Act, and when recovered they were to form part of the Consolidated Fund. He did not find it necessary to express any opinion as to whether or not an award under the statute might provide for penalties for breach of its provisions, or as to the difficulties which it had been suggested existed in enforcing the provisions of such an award. The summons must be dismissed, but, as the point was novel and the contention of the statute was not free from difficulties, without costs. The ordinary weekly meeting of the Trades and Labour Council was held last week, Mr Andrew Collins, president, in the chair. It was decided to invite the Westland Trad e i and Labour Council to be represented at the next conference of Trades and Labour Councils to be held in Wellington at Easter. What shall we do with our boys? The question appears to have greatly exercised the mind of a Wellington builder. In a letteir which he wrote to the secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners, and which was handed to the President of the Arbitration Court for perusal, he made the following sarcastic reference to the Society’s proposal in regard to apprentices : —“ In this matter your Soeiety ought to place a heavy penalty upon the Divine Creator should He in future permit an overstock of boys to be brought into this world, and expect them to earn a living, either to iupport themselves or their aged parents.” With reference to the deputation which Waited upon the Premier at Christchurch in regard to the delay in the arbitration on the engineers* dispute, it may be stated that a member of the Arbitration Court, when iu Wellington last week, said it was improbable that the Court would be able to hear any further cases till after Easter, on account of the President’s Supreme Court engagements. The officials of the Engineers’ Society estimate that 75 per cent, of the members will have resumed work within a few days.