ARBITRATION COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 6052, 9 November 1906, Page 3

ARBITRATION COURT.

ENFORCEMENT OF AWARDS.

Tho Arbitration Court (Mr Justice Chapman, president, and Messrs S. Drown ami R. Slater) yesterday continued the hearing of proceedings for alleged breachesi of awards. The Labour Department was represented by Messrs P. Hally and 0. K. Aldridge, Inspectors of Awards, DITCHERS OR DRIVERS? The Hanks Co-operative Meat Company was preceedod against tor committing a broach cf the driven) award by employing a- noil-unionist u hen a unionist was available. Mr M. Myers, for respondent, pleaded that tho company should not bo deemed subject to the award, for tuo reasons. The Ranks Mont Company bad purchased the business from Air Hanks, who bad not been made a party to tbo award when it was made. Ik was practically still the same bnsinock, and the company was therefore not. a party to the award. The second reason was that the company should not bo bound by this award since tbo drivers concerned came mure appropriately under the award. These men had to be skilled in tbo butchering trade. Their carts were really whoieude hawking carts. In replv to tbo president, Mr Myers said tbo di’ivoro took orders cadi day and delivered them tbo following day. The president: “Then they arc not hawking carts.-” The president proceeded to state that the difficulty raised by Air Myers with reference to drivers employed in special trades bad been mot by tho Court in making recent awards. Tho Court- had reserved power to make special provisions for such 'driverd. Tins difficulty had not been thought of, however, at the time the Wellington award was made. Inspector .Hally claimed that it bad been decided again and again that such a company as the Ranks Meat Company was subject to tho award. Ho referred to the case cf throe similar firms in Dunedin, which carried on'a wholesale buainesi and carted meat from tbo abattoirs to the retail shops. For tbo defence Isaac Sykes managing director of the Banks Company, gave evidence. Tho company delivered meat daily to the retail butchers in Wellington. The carters employed wore butchers. Ordinary carters would not know how to handle quarters of hoof. Tbo carters took turns at quartering the beef at Vlie erhouse before leaving for tho city each morning. "Witness did not know bo- came under the award until lie wad summoned to appear in this case. Arthur Gadsby, wholesale and retail butcher, of Taita, stated in evidence that ho also eir ployed butchers ae drivers, because other men could not handle tho beef properly. Thersc drivers took part in the cutting up. „ James J. Aloore, works manager for the Wellington Meat Export Company, gave similar testimony. Inspector Hally said ho could produce as a witness the secretary of the Butchers’ Union, who could tell tbo reasons why the Banks Company and others were exempted from the butchers’ award. If these drivers were regarded ;u r J butchers they were receiving less than tho wages prescribed in the butchers’ award. Ah- Myers said there was no question of wages, ao the men were paid more than was prescribed for ordinary drivers. The company bad no wish to evade the award. Tile Court dismissed tbo case. ■ Tbo president stated that. the reasons for this desicion would bo given in writing: \ TAILORS’ CASES. Several cases were brought against clothiers of Wellington for breaches of section 7 of tho tailors’ award. This section provides that all bespoke work must bo done on the promises of the employer for whom the order is taken. As a result of these proceedings, fines of £5 each were imposed on C. Smith. Duncan and Mclntosh, tbo D.1.C., and Walsh and Go. Tho proceedings are reported in another part of this paper. For underpayment, S. Siegel (employer) was fined £o, and J. Al. Steiner (employee), 10s. DRIVERS’ CASES. Under the drivers’ award several oases of underpayment were dealt with. Fines of £5 on employers and 10s on employees were iihposed as follows; Richard Swaislan (employer), and William.Lambie (employer), Walter Hazlett (employee), John August (employer), and David Wilson (employee), Stratford and Son (employers), and P. Burko (employee). Two breaches were alleged against J. W. Connor. The employment of a noq-unionist when a unionist was unemployed was admitted. The other charge of not making full holiday payment on Good Friday was admitted under extenuating circumstances. Mr Neavo explained that one of Connor’s drivers had taken a shooting party to Wainui-o-mata and had joined in the shooting. If the actual time of driving were taken, the ,man was very nearly fully paid. Tho Court imposed a fine of £lO in tho first case and £1 in tho second.

Joseph Andrews, for employing a lad, under eighteen years of age to drive a dray, was fined €5. Inspector Aldridge said the lad was respondent’s son. The offence had been continued after respondent was warned that he was committing a breach. Charles Beynon admitted a similar breach. Mr Levvcy pleaded mitigating circumstances. Tho lad was respondent’s son, and was only employed half-time. Inspector Aldridge said in this case also a warning liad been given and disregarded, but subsequently the bey had been taken off the ,work. A fine of £5 was imxmsed. A charge of underpayment was brought against Philip Abraham, employer (two cases) and Sidney Hargreaves, employee. It was stated that Abraham liad left tho colony. For Hargreaves, Mr Levvey pleaded, that respondent was a young man, arid that ho had, taken employment at less than tho minimum wage because that_ was his only opportunity to obtain a - livelihood. Abraham was fined £5 for each breach, and a breach, without penalty, was recorded against Hargreaves. Tho inspector proceeded against James Johnston, cab proprietor, for having employed two young men, Shock and McGregor, who were doctors’ drivers, to drive his cabs on Sundays. Johnston was fined £5. Shock and McGregor were fined 10s each. Four charges were brought against J. Koir of failing to pay for overtime in tho week during which the overtime was worked. Tho employees concerned were Fox, Anderson, Barrett, and Symons. For the employer. Mr Grenfell explained that the overtime had not been made in each week because the men had failed to keep their time-sheets regularly. Tho Court fined Koir £5 in the "first case and two in each of the others; Each of tho employees concerned was fined £l.

For failing to give- preference to a unionist J. Collie was fined £5. BUTCHERS’ OFFENCES. Under the butchers’ award Garrett and Company (represented by Air Organ) admitted baring employed a nonunionist when a unionist was available. ’There was, however, no intention to evade tho award, and' the employment book -bad been inspected. But tbo name of an unemployed unionist had been overlooked. The Court recognised that a buna fide endeavour had keen made to comply with the award, and infliecod a mitigated penalty of £l. Charges were brought again L. Howard and Alexander llislop employees of R. G likes. butcher, of working overtime without payment. Inspector Aldridge’ said it appeared that Gilkcw was ignorant of the offence, and asked that tho ease against him might he withdrawn.. The Court granted this application and lined the employees 10s each. PAINTERS’ OVERTURE. Under the painters’ and decorators’ award a charge of non-payment for overtime was: brought against Vv. G. Tu.stin (employer) and the following employees:—Alfred .Mesf-eiigcr, Arthur Alitchcll, Antonio Frandi, Thomas Williams, James McCullough and Lowndes. Tu.stin and McCullough gave evidence that tho men had been working at Trentbam and the men bad agreed among themselves to work overtime without payment. Tustin bad not known of this agreement, and believed that bo wa.s paying’ the men for all overtime worked. The pre-ident, in giving .the judgment of the Court, ('aid a mitigated penalty would bo imposed on Tuetin. As a matter of principle the Court could not altogether dispense with a penalty, for the reason that the employ cl’ must in nil eases be held responsible for the acts of his foreman. Respondent would be fined £l. Tbo case of the men was -different. They had doliberatotly dubbed together to break an award made for their benefit. Each would be lined £l. Three other employees, Albert Warren, James Alackay, and Albert Melville, were concerned, but. their summonses bad not been served. Under tho same award Nichol and Stringer were fined £5 for failing to pay overtime. A CARPENTER’S IMPROVER. A. J. Rand, builder, admitted having underpaid a journeyman carpenter. Respondent explained that tho carpenter concerned was a lad who had been taken on ns an improver at his own request. The lad had applied several times to the (Secretary of the Carpenters’ Union for a permit to work as ■an improver. The lad had been pirich' several times, but the permit had not been actually refused till after tho summons for tho breach had been issued. It wa.s because the. application had not been refused that the lad had not appealed to tho chairman of tho Conciliation Board for a permit. Tho employee, Davis, appeared, and made a similar .statement. The president said ho could not accept this excuse since it was open to tho parties to apply immediately to the chairman o.f the Conciliation Board when the permit was not received from the secretary of the union. Rand was fined £3 and Davis 10s. OTHER. BREACHES. Plasterer,s’ Award.—Charges of respectively paying and receiving lesrj than the proscribed wage were brought against Charles Emcny and Frank Brewer. Air Hordman, who appeared for Emcny said Ills client bad been under the. impression, when employing Brewer, that tho man had a permit to work for an incompetent’s wage. Brower had formerly been in Emeny’s employ, and had then had such a permit. Tho offence extended over only nine days, at the end of which time Ivmeny discovered that his employer had no permit. A mitigated penalty of £1 was imposed on Emeny. Brewer was fined lOsc Under the farriers’ award a-charge of underpayment was brought against George Spiers (employer) and George Ross (employee). Air Lcvvey explained the circumstances of the offence. Tho Court, being satisfied With tho excuse offered exacted a nominal fine of £1 in the ca.se of Spiers and' in the case of Ross recorded a breach without penalty. Under tho ooachworkeref award proceedings in respect of underpayment were taken against Rouse and Hurrell (■employer's) and T. Pctherick (employee). Mr Grenfell, for the employers, stated that there had been considerable doubt in the union, tho Labour Department, and the firm as to the effect of the award in this case. Pethcniek was engaged on tramcar construction work. As soon as an interpretation was published by the department tho man was paid full wages. Tiro president said an interpretation had been given on the question, but tho effect of the award appeared so clear to tho Court that this could not bo regarded as a sufficient excuse. Rouse and Hurrell were fined £5 and Petherick ICW.

Shortly after 5 o’clock the Court adjourned till Monday. On that da.v original disputes will he heard, and the order of business will he arranged. Notice will bo given of the date when the hearing of actions for breaches will bo continued.