ARBITRATION COURT

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 7078, 16 March 1910, Page 4

ARBITRATION COURT

TUESDAY, MARCH 15. .. - a:. .:, ■■ ~.<-.? > -,; ■ /■'. '■■'•'•"'■• J ~'*ji%®*-'*ti (Before his Honor Mr Justice Sim and Messrs. ~J.. M. McCullough, workers' representative, and W. Scott, employers' representative.) REFERRED BACK. The Inspector of Awards appealed against the decision of a magistrate, in dismissing a charge against W. H. Denhard, baker, Wellington, of committing a breach of the bakers' award by working his . employees after 10 'p.m. on' December 23rd, 1900. Mr D. M. Findlay-appeared for the appellant, and Mr J. J.'McGrath for the' 'respondent. " ':■: The case, Mr Findlay said, was an : appeal'from the judgment of the Stipendiary . Magistrate at Wellington, sitting under the jurisdiction'of the Conciliation and Arbitration. Act, respecting breach- of thebakers' award. The defendant in the case heard by the Magistrate was 'a baker-- carrying dn :business ; 'in Wellington,,and he.vwas'ch'afgod with having worked certain employees between the hours of 10 p.m. and midnight on [December' 23rd last. This was alleged by the informant to be a breach of ■clause 9 of the -award, under the Iheading of '" Overtime," which provides that no work'shall be done after 10 p.m., "except, on " hot-cross bun "■ .night, when time 'shall, be .paid. The Court had really' to "■ decide •whether this, olause was an .absolute 'prohibition against ';, all work-.after.lo p.m.. except under that one circumstance. ' The Magistrate seemed to jhave arrived; at. a very extraordinary (result in dismissing the case. Work had been . commenced at 10 p.m. in order to provide for three consecutive holidays. : As-the Magistrate remarked, such a circumstance was very unusual. He had hold that as the men had not worked- continuously up to ,10 p.m., but had" commenced at that /hour, the clause did not apply. Counsel considered that such a finding was absurd.. If it were sustained,; an employer could make his men cease work at 9 p.m. and then start them again at 10 without committing a-breach of the award, ... Mr MoGrath said, that the, defendant had had to provide for four days' supply "of bread, and it was absolutely iessential that work should have been commenced at 10 p.m. on the 23rd.. If an .employer, worked his men up to 10»p.m., and then continuously after that, he would be committing a breach, but this the defendant had not done. It had been proved in the lower Court that work had been commenced at 10 p.m. in order to suit the convenience I of- the men. '. ' '. „".

The Court held that the Magistrate's •decision was wrong, and referred the case back to-him to deal with as he ithinks fit. '- -' "" AN" INJURED* FINGER.

Ruth Ellen Miller, a seventeen-year-old girl, sought . compensation from Peter- Carnie, restaurant-keeper, for the loss,of a finger,_ resulting.,on injuries sustained while she was working fort-he defendant. Air A. H. Hindmarsh, who appeared on behalf of, the complainant, said that .the claimant had been employed as a domestic servant at the defendant's restaurant and boarding-house in Oourtenay place at 17s 6d a week, She was washing the floor ■ one day, and scratched her finger. She went on working, but blood-poisoning set in and her finger got worse. About a month after the accident she went tc- 1

Dr Mackin, who lanced the finger down the back, and bandaged it up.. Oarmo told her that the doctor did not know his business, took off the' bandage, and cut the finger open with a, knife. The claimant eventually ..Went Jo J>r. Hislop, who cut off most of the top joint of the finger. The whole of-the finger was still stiff, and was practically useless. Mr K v Kirkcaldie,;for the defence, called Dt Mackin, who said that the girl had, not obeyed his instructions after she came to him. The defendant absolutely denied having ever touched the finger. His wife stated that the girl had never scrubbed the kitchen floor. She had first of all said that she stuck a fork in. her finger. _ The Court held, that the girl's injuries had been sustained in the way she described, and that she was entitled to compensation for the period between August V 6th' and November .29th. On the latter date, she was able to return to work, and did so for a 1 period; of five weeks at another restaurant. The compensation she was entitled to was half ■ wages for eight weeks," a total of £5 XOs. Costs £3 3s, with disbursements and witnesses' expenses, were allowed. - '