ARBITRATION COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 5734, 1 November 1905, Page 2

ARBITRATION COURT.

Tho Arb it rat ion Court—Mr Justice Chapman (President), and Messrs Brown and Slater-—sat again yesterday in tbo hearing of applications for enforcement of awards. A CONFLICT OF EVIDEXCK. J. R. Wollsby, for whom Mr Weston appeared. was charged with a broach of the carters’ award. by employing Philip Brewster for more than 475- hours a week, and failing to pay him overtime. Mr Findlay, /or the inspector _of awards, said there was a question whether respondent came within the award. Ho was not mentioned in it, and had not been cited. It was, however, submitted that at tho time the award was made be employed men driving cabs and doctors’ carriages. Ho was not then a general carrier, but after tbo award ho became one, and took out a license for an express. It was in connection with tho driver of this express that tho present charge was laid. Kvidcnoo as to the terms and conditions of his employment was given by Philip Brewster. In cross-examination ho denied that he lured tho exprefs from respondent. Had frequently applied for overtime. George Adams, formerly in tho employ oi respondent, stated that he was witli previous witness on one occasion when ho (Brewster) drew n week’s wages from respondent. Mr Weston, for the defence, said that after tho award Wollsby leased the express and horse at 30s a week to James Reid. After a fortnight ho threw it up. Brewster thereupon applied for it, and was given the lease of it on the same terms. He worked it as ho liked, and in ids own time. As to other work done for respondent by Brewster, it was only odd jobs, in return for which, ho got ids keep. James Reid (originally subpoenaed by tbo other side) was called by Mr Wcston. Ho said lie was present when Brewster took tho express and horse on hire.

Respondent gave evidence in corroboration of the defence outlined by bis counsel. Had never paid Brewster any wages—never bad biin employed on wages. The President said the Court bad seldom bad to deal with a case in whioli tbo evidence was so absolutely unsatisfactory. The information must bo dismissed because tbo evidence did not prove the actual complaint, namely, that Brewster bad worked overtime, and not been paid overtime. Tbo Court did not consider it necessary to go into the other issues raised. Costs, £2 2s, and expenses were allowed to respondent. A STEAMSHIP COMPANY CHARGED. Tbo Australasian Federated Scanlon’s Union, represented by Mr W. T. Young (secretary), proceeded against tbo Wellington, Havelock, and Motucka- Steamship Company, for whom Mr Myers appeared, on two charges of breaches of the seamen’s award. In support' of the union’s case, Mr Young said that when the award was made in 1902 tbo s.s. Manama tin connection with which the charges arose) belonged to tbo Sounds and Golden Bay Steamship Company. That company waa a party to the award, ■ but, subsequent to tbo award the company was dissolved, and a new company—the respondents—was formed. It was contended that under tbo circumstances respondent company was bound by tbo award. The Manaroa was a small vessel trading principally between Wellington and Pclorus Sounds, where she worked about twenty bays, being under contract to the Government to carry mails to some of them. Sailors on the vessel received £3 per month, and were only paid overtime at Customs’ ports, and a minimum of 10s for Sunday^work. The only Customs port to whicn. the Manaroa' traded regularly was '.'•cllington, so that whilst overtime might bo worked by tbo men in the various have referred to, it was not paid tor. This formed the first breach of the -'ward with, which respondents were charged. The second charge was that the respondents discharged, two men who were unionists, because they bad demanded overtime through then union, and that in consequence the} had bean refused work by the Union Steam Ship Company. Albert Waddell,' seaman, stated that he had been discharged from the Mandrel Could not ascertain the reason and knew of none, unless it wem that he was a unionist, In reply to Mr Myers, witness said he knew nothing of pillaging going on upon the vessel. Joseph Huston, fireman, also deposed to having been dismissed from 'io Manaroa, and to being unable to find out the reason. He got a first-class discharge. Subsequently he applied to the Union Steam Ship Company for a ipb. hut was told by Mr Breen, assistant marine superintendent of tne company that he had received instructions from tiro manager not to employ any of the Manama’s men. Mr Breen afterwards got witness a job on the PenglJlr Kennedy, manager of the Union Steam Ship Company, stated that he had instructed Breen not to employ any seaman or fireman who had been discharged from tho Manaroa. That was because of information he had received of extensive pillages on that vessel. This information came first from Mr Hanlon, of the respondent company, Later, he found it was a matter of wharf talk. Acted as he did because of the manner in which his own company had suffered every week — every day—from pillaging. He told Breen he Would giye him reasons later for his instructions- The reasons were that he had learned that there ■ was a means of access on the Manaroa from the fo’castlo to the hold, and that the police were inquiring into the matter. He, therefore, wished to await developments. Was by no means satisfied that the two men who had given evidence were connected with the pillaging on the Manaroa.

Mr Myers asked the Court to dismiss tho second charge. Ho submitted there was no evidence to show that- it was because these men were unionists, or had raised a question of unionism, that they were discharged. After consideration, the Court decided to dismiss the charge in question. Dealing with the charge as to nonpayment of overtime, Mr Myers (who called no witnesses) admitted a technical broach,- hut submitted that it was not a caso for the infliction of a penalty, tho men having suffered no losshy the company’s system of payment. For a long' time men and company had acquiesced in an arrangement for setting aside the question of overtime under an agreed scale of wages. The President, in delivering judgment, said the Court could not admit that mop had the power to dispense with the terms of an award in coming to an agreement with_ employers. A breach had been committed, and they must inflict a penalty. In fixing .■ it, however, the Court must take into ao-

count tho fact that tho arrangement suited tho men as well as the masters. That was no answer, but was. to a certain extent, a mitigating circumstance. A breach had boon proved and admitted, and was not a nominal one. but tho Court thought the requirements of tho case would be met by inflicting a penalty of £5. No expenses would bo allowed, since each party bad succeeded on one charge. A BREACH ADMITTED. Neil Neilson, represented by Mr "W. 11. Field, admitted a broach of the btuHere’ and labourers’ award in employing a youth as bricklayer’s assistant at other than tho wage fixpd by tho award. Mr Findlay appeared for tho inspector. A fine of £2 and costs, £1 Is, was inflicted. Tim Court adjourned until 10.30 tins morning.