ARBITRATION COURT

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 6178, 9 April 1907, Page 5

ARBITRATION COURT

BREACHES OF AWARDS. TRESS ASSOCIATION'. AUCKLAND, April 8. A large number of breaches of awards wore dealt with at the Arbitration Court to-day. John Harris, for committing a breach of tile grocers’ award by employing two female assistants at 30s and 20b respectively, at less than the minimum wage, was lined £5 and costs. The two employees were each fined ss, without costs? In each case ignorance of a breach was pleaded. A. Dawson and Fred King (his assistant) pleaded guilty to having committed 3. breach of the hairdressers’ award, by working on Labour Dav. Dawson was fined .£2 and King 10s. ' Eric Rotter, a hairdresser, pleaded guilty to having worked until 0 p.m.. in breach of tne clause that provided for work ending at S p.m. A fine of £5, with costs, was imposed'. It. Knoebone. hairdresser, who admitted having permitted working over hours, viz., after 10 p.m., was fined .£2, with costs. J. J. Gascon, master painter, admitted having employed non-union men when there were union men’s names on the employment book. He said he did not look at the book, but was told there were no names upon it. The Court held that no real excuse had been offered, and imposed a fine of A 5. For committing a breach of the painters’ award by emnloying a man at less than (he minimum "wage, J. Staiuton was fined £5, with costs. The man employed was fined 10s, without costs. Miller and Patterson, for unlawfully employing an apprentice. were fined .£7, with costs. The apprentice was fined £2. J. Hill admitted employing a coach-worker at under the minimum wage, and was fined £-,, with costs, and the employee was lined .£l. Robert Barber, baker, was found guilty of cr.nmitting two breaches of the bakers’ award by employing men at loss than the minimum wage. A fine of .£7 was imposed on Barber, and one of the employees was fined 10s. The other employee was convicted, but not fined, as "tho Court held that lie could not have been acquainted with the provisions of the award. Jloorcraft and ■Sons, bakers, for neglecting to pa_y overtime to an emp eyee, and also for employing him at less than the minimum wage, were fined .£. r i on each charge. The employee was lined 10s for being a party to the breach. H. Conquer, for a breach of the plumbers’ award by underpaying a boy, was lined .£5. Crawford and Tattersall and H. Coi'iu, for failing to properly indenture two appr -nticcs under the same award, were each fined -C5. C. Franklin, for a breach of the carpenters’ aw ml by employing a non-unionist without first ascertaining whether unionists were available, was fined £2. For a similar offence, M. Reardon was fined ,£5. Peacock and Hampden were fined for failing to giro preference to unionists under the carpenters’ award, and were also lined £0 for emnloying men under the stipulated carpenters’ wage without a permit. IV. Fairwcathor and. Lye and Son were each lined £O. Similar penalties were inflicted under the same award on R. Taylor and IV. H. Barriball for failing to properly indenture apprentices and John William Dixon for employing men under the required wage. For a similar offence, I’. H. Warren was fined £2. For failing to givo preference to unionists, ]£. C. Small was lined £5. IV. P. and ,T. Black wore fined .£1 each for fcmploying too many apprentices in a furnituro factory.