WHO SHOULD PROSECUTE?

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1847, 31 July 1907, Page 11

WHO SHOULD PROSECUTE?

An important phase of the working of the machinery of the Arbitration Court was touched upon at Christchurch last week, when the representative of the General Labourers' Union sought to obtain enforcement of an award in the matter of payment of overtime. The President (Mr Justice Sim) asked why the matter had not been investigated by the Labour Department, and pointed out that the Court had frequently expressed the opinion that it was much moro satisfactory to have claims for enforcement brought forward by the inspectors. Mr Paterson, the union representative, said the union was conducting its own case, because inspectors were sometimes found unwilling to take action, even although there seemed to be a clear breach of award. Mr Brown, employers' representative on the Bench, remarked that he had never known a case to succeed when brought forward after the department had refused to take action, and in this case the remark was borne out, as, after hearing the parties, tho Court dismissed the application. The union was ordered to pay the employer's costs, and then application for costs was made by the men who had been cited to appear, and who had lost three days' work while waiting for the hearing. They denied having made any representations in the matter, and stated that had the case not been brought they would have been working for the employer cited. It was ordered that the union pay the expenses of the four men concerned.