ARBITRATION COURT

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 6491, 10 April 1908, Page 7

ARBITRATION COURT

VARIOUS JUDGMENTS.

A number of judgments of the ArbiIBation Court wp.rn tiled with the Clerk of Awards yesterday. BREACH OF AWARD. APPRENTICE OR JOURNEYMAN? Wellington Amalgamated Society of Pan tors and Dooorntore’ Union v. btandige and Co. In this case the respondents are alleged to have committed a broach of Iho award by paying a journeyman named Trmlgeon loss than the award rate of wages during tho months of June, Jnlv, August, and September, D 37.

It was admitted that Trudgeon was paid only 112 pin week during the poriod in question, but it was claimed on behalf of ■ tho respondents that Inulfteon was thou apprentice and that, therefore, they wore nob bound to pay him tho wage proscribed for a journeyman.

Thoro have been cases in which tho Court ban hold that a worker who has not served a full apprenticeship, and trim is not a competent journeyman in hio trade, may bo apprenticed lor the balance of the proper torm, but it is necessary for tho parties who roly on such an arrangement to be ablo to prove oloarly that it has boc.it made bona fide, and not for tho purpose of evading tho provisions or an award with regard to tho minimum wage la tin present caso tho respondents have failed to satisfy tho Court of this, and thoro are gronndu for suspecting that the apprenticeship was simply a device far evading payment of tho minimum wage prescribed by the award.

Tho Court found that tho respondents have failed to prove that tho apprenticeship wad a hona fido arrangement, and hold that the respondents committed a breach of award by paymg Trudgoon less than tho award rate of wages. It imposed a penalty of £o, to be paid to the union, and allowed the union £3 3s for costs with disbursements and witnesses’ expenses to bo fixed by tho Cfork of Awards. Mr U. M Fmdluy appeared for tho union, and Mr iferdman for tho retpondcmta.

TYPOGRAPHICAL CASE.

PAYMENT FOB LABOUR DAY.

inspector of Awards r. Blundell Bros., “ New Zealand Times Company, and Wellington Publishing Company.

The same question was involved in each case as to the construction of clause 3 of the Wellington Typographical award in connection with machines. Clausa 3 provides that any operator or apprentice required to work on Christmas Day or Good Friday shall be paid at double rates, and if required to work on .New Year’s Day of Labour Day shall be paid at time and a half rates, or at a corresponding rate for piecework. The respondents employ their linotype operators at tho weekly wage prescribed by clause 4 of the • award. They wore required to work, and did work, on Labour Day, hut Were paid only half-time in addition to their weekly wage for the work done on Labour Day. The question which the Court had to determine was whether the operators ought not to have been paid at the rate of time and a half for this work in addition to the weekly wage. The judgment stated:—lt has not been the custom of employers to mako any deduction from the weekly wage for time lost through hoiidiays, and the right of weekly hands to be paid for the specified holidays is expressly recognised by the provision in clause 3 to the effect that if the holidays are given all operators shall bo paid for them at time rates. The position, therefore, is this; An operator is entitled to bo paid his full weekly wage for the week in which any ef the specified holidays occurs, although he does not do any work on that particular holiday. If, however, he is required to work oh such holiday, then ho is entitled, we think, to be paid at the specified rate for the work done on that day in addition to his weekly wage. Thus, if ho Works bn Labour Day he is entitled to he paid at the rake of time ahd a half for such work in addition to his weekly wage. To hold otherwise and accept the construction which the respondents invito the Court to put on the Clause would lead to this result: An operator Who is a weekly wage hand is entitled ti be paid his full weekly wage without doing any work oh Labour Day, end, if he works on Labour Day, he would he paid for the work done on that day one-half only i'pf the rate which he is paid for work done on other days. The construction contended for by the respondents Would also produce a remarkable difference between the rate to be paid , to weekly hands and piece-workers too - work done on Labour Day. A piece-worker is not entitled to be paid in respect of holidays save for work done on such holidays. For work done on Labour Day a piece-worker is entitled, therefore, to be paid in terms of the award at a rate corresponding to time and a half, but, according to the respondents’ construction, a weekly hand is only entitled to be_ paid at the rate of half-time-in-addition to his weekly Wage. In other words, a piece-worker Is entitled to bo paid at least three times as much as a weekly hand for tho very same work when it has been done on Labour Day. It appears to us that a construction which produces such results as these cannot be the proper construction to be put on the language of the award, and any custom to pay in accordance with, such a tonstruotion is inconsistent With the provisions of the award. 'A custom cannot he relied on if it is inconsistent With the provisions of an award. Inspector of Awards v. Whitoomibe and Tombs (9, Graz. L.R., 64-5), We hold, therefore, that the respondents have oammitted a breach of award by paying the workers in auction at tho rate of half-time only, in addition to their weekly wage, for Work done on Labour Day. but a-s the cases have been brought to have the question settled, we do not impose any penalty. Tho respondents must pay the costs of the proceedings, which we fix at £5 ss, with disbursement and witnesses’ expenses, to bo fixed by the Clerk of Awards.; These costs are to ho paid by tho three respondents in equal shares. Mr D. M. Findlay appeared for the Inspector of Awards and' Mr Herdman for the respondents.

NON-TOTtONTST WORKERS,

IMPORTANT POINT SETTLED. Inspector of Awards v. Luke Mounter, 'respondent. Respondent was cnprserod by R. and B. Tingoy and 00., Ltd., as a eagn-

writer and glass-embossor for a term of two years from Aiay 27th, 1997. Ho refused to join tho workers’ union, and iho proceedings wero brought to enforce the provisions of an award made in June, 1907, in connection with tho painting trade. It was contended that the respondent was not bound hv the provisions contained in clause 9’of tho award, because, m the first place, as non-unionist workers cannot be represented before a ton* ciliation Board or the Arbitration Court on tho hearing of an industrial dispute, tho Court had no junsdiotion. to deal in any award with tho righto of non-unionist workers; and, secondly, tho claim to havo a provision such aa that in question made binding on the parties oould not be raado the subject of a dispute with regard to industrial matters. . . . The Court held that there was jurisdiction to insert in the award tho provision in question, and that the respondent was bound thereby. The respondent had committed a breach by refusing to join tho. union, but the Court aid not impose any penalty at present. If the respondent within fourteen days from date of judgment did all that was necessary on his part to become a member of the union, a breach would not bo recorded. If, however. ho failed to do so, tho Court would reconsider hereafter what penalty should bo imposed, and tho further consideration of tho ca-so was adjourned to tho next regular sitting of tho Court in Wellington. Respondent was ordered to pay the inspector’s disbursements for foes of Court. Mr D. M. Findlay appeared for the inspector, and Mr Buddie for tho respondent.

A SIMILAR CASE,

IS AN ART CRAFTSMAN A JOURNEYMAN?

Inspector of Awards v. Arthur R. Oattanaph. Tho judgment read; Thu case is similar to the case of the Inspector of Awards y. Mounter, in which judgment has just been delivered. Mr Oattanaoh was engaged by R. and E. Tingoy and 00., Ltd., a® a signwriter and glass-embosser for a term of two years and six months from tho 27th day of May, 1907, and has boon in the employment of that oompa ny sinoo that date. He has refused to join tho union,, and_ claims that, as the work in which he is engaged is designing decorative glass work, ho is an art craftsman, and is not a journeyman within the meaning of clause 1 of the award (Book of Awards, Vol. VTU., p. 311). The award includes (inter alia) glaziers, signwriters, decorators, and all other journeymen working at any branch of the trade. Mr Cattanach is described in his agreement with his employer as a sign-writer and glass-embosser, and we are satisfied that he is a journeyman within the meaning of the award, and is bound by its provisions. He has committed a breach of award by refusing to join the union, and we make the same order in this case as was made in Mounter’s case.