ARBITRATION COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 5643, 18 July 1905, Page 5

ARBITRATION COURT.

PRESS ASSOrtATrON. DUNEDIN, July 17. The Arbitration Court sat this morning. Waghorn, a painter, was fined £5 for employing an unindentured apprentice and underpaying him. Alexander Henderson, carter, for working for lower wages than those spec'fied in the award, was fined 10s and expenses, and Moritzsoii and Co., who had inadvertently employed him at reduced wages, ,£'2 and expenses. Mathew Smith was proceeded against on two informations to enforce the painters’ award in regard to the ■wages of two men, and was fined and expenses in each case. This afternoon, Alexander Munro was fined £3 for a breach of the tailorcsses’ award in putting out work, and £2 for paying less than tho award rate, with expenses. Consideration was given to the fact that respondent had acted under pressure through an employee leaving. A. Moritzson and Company were fined £l, with expenses, for breach of the carters’ award in employing at heavy work a vouih of eighteen years. The Court said Moritzsou had made a bona fide attempt to discriminate between light and heavy work, but had not gone sufficiently far to satisfy tho Court.

RENTING BARBERS’ CHAIRS. CHRISTCHURCH. July 17. The Arbitration Court has given its interpretation on a point submitted by the Cristchurch hairdressers and tobacconists. Since the agreement has been entered into a practice has arisen in Christchurch under which same of the hairdressers have rented a chair or chains in the employer’s saloon at a certain weekly rental, subject to a week’s or other notice-on either side. The Court’s decision is that the industrial agreement is in the ordinary form, and does not profess to prohibit this practice. The actual effect of the practice is that the relation of employer and employee ceases to exist, and an arrangement akin to that of landlord and tenant is substituted, as tho arrangement implies a letting of tho chair and plant and sufficient of the prenvees to allow' the work to be done. The scheme of the Industrial Con ciliation and Arbitration Act, 1900, confines its scope to regulating the relations between employers and employees, and does not embrace matters outside these relations. In a case where the relations stated here to exist was set up wo should always be empowered to inquire into the bona" fides of the arrangement with a view to determining tho reality of it? existence, just as we have to inquire into such matters in workers’ compensation oases, when tho defence is set up that the relat on of master and servant did not exist. It. will be noted that the application speaks of renting “a chair orchairs.” If a man rents a second chair and employs a man to work in it he thereby becomes an employer of labour.