ARBITRATION COURT

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7977, 7 December 1911, Page 2

ARBITRATION COURT

LAST SITTING OF THD YEAR. SOME RESERVED DECISIONS. The Arbitration Court concluded its last sitting for the year in Wellington yesterday. His Honor Mr Justice Sim presided, with him on the bench being Messrs It. Scott and J. A. McCullough, employers’ find workers' representatives respectively. TRAVELLING TTME. CARPENTERS AT MIRAMAR. POSITION OF THE GAS COMPANY. The court delivered its judgment in tho caso brought by the Inspector of Awards against tho Wellington Gas ( .-jinpany lo recover a penalty for an alleged breach of tho Wellington carpenters’ award. The case had been tieard on Monday, tho breach alleged being that during July last, the company employed carpenters at Miramar, outside a radius of two miles from the To Aro Post Office, and failed to pay tho men for time occupied in travelling to and fro as provided by clause 7 of the award. It was shown that the company had its registered office and a place of business in Wellington and also a permanent place of business and an office at Miramar, where the men wore engaged in the erection of permanent buildings. All carpenters required to work at Miramar were engaged, paid and discharged there, but in engaging, men on tho spot no steps wore taken to ascertain where they resided. The question to be determined was whether tho company is liable to pay any carpenter engaged in this way his travelling expenses under elapse 7 of tho award if he resides more than two mil-jB from the place of business at Miramar. Tho answer to this, said tho court, depends upon where the company is to bo treated as carrying on business within tiro meaning of clause 7 of the award. Tho award was one dealing with tho building trade and it could apply to tho company only in relation to building operations. Tho business of tho company was not on building, but the manufacture and sale of gas, and tho building operations on which it was engaged at Miramar were incidental to its own business. Under the circumstances it appeared to tho court that the company should not be treated as carrying ou business as a builder in the city of Wellington within the meaning of clause 7. for the purposes of this clause it was carrying on business at Miramar, which must, therefore, bo treated as its place of business. The result was that the work in question was not suburban work within tho meaning of tho clause and there had not been any breach of award. Judgment would, accordingly, he given for the defendant. Tho court added that tho decision was not an authority as to tho position of an employer who is carrying on business regularly as a builder. Mr McCullough did not concur in the judgment. Ho thought that the company should bo treated as carrying on business in Wellington. PAINTERS’ AWARD. A POINT OF PRACTICE SETTLED. Decision was also given upon the application of the Wellington Painters' Union to join as parties to its award the Gear Meat Company, tho Wellington Meat Export Company, the Wellington Harbour Board, the Wellington Oily Corporation ana the Union Steam Ship Company. Tho application was made to the court on Monday. Tho court decided that tho parties should be added, but that they should bo exempt from all provisions of the award except those relating to wages, overtime and hours of work. To the judgment was added tho following memorandum: “Where an award is made in connection with a trade or industry, the parties to the award should bo limited, as far as possible, to employers who are engaged in that particular trade or industry. The employers named in this order are not carrying on business as master painters. They, therefore, should not be added as ordinary parties to tho award. They, however, are doing work from time to rime that conies within the scope of the award and are employing journeymen painters. In these circumstances the proper course to adopt, in the opinion of the court, is to-add them as parties to the award, so as to bind them to pay tho wages fixed by the award and also to pay for overtime and for work done on holidays according -to the provisions of the award, which prima facie are applicable only to employers in business as master painters. The court adopted the same course with regard to builders and other similar employers when dealing with the,boilermakers’ dispute in September last' and that and the present case are to be treated as settling the practice of tho court with regard to all similar cases.’’ ERECTION OF PICKET FENCES. , IS IT CARPENTERS’ WORK? A question as to whether tho erection of picket fences is carpenters and joiners’ work was before the court in a case brought against the Borough of Miramar by the Inspector of Awards. An ' employee of the Borough Council was instructed to erect picket fences round some shrubs on one of tho borough roads and the work was satisfactorily done. The Inspector of Awards asked the court to rule whether this was a breach of the carpenters’ award, in that tho council employee was not a member of the union and was not paid tho award rate of wages. The Inspector of Awards appeared in person, and Mr V. Meredith represented the defendant council. After hearing evidence the court reserved judgment. COMPENSATION CLAIM. PLAINTIFF SUCCEEDS. A claim for £7 11s 6d as compensation! for accident and medical expenses was made by Edward Charman, a plasterer, upon his late employer, Charles Emory. The accident from which the claim arose ocfcurred on a job in Willis street. Mr D. M. Findlay, who appeared for the claimant, said that in tho course of his employment on April 12th last, Charman stooped down and struck a projecting beam, which caused an injury leading to an abcess. This incapacitated him until May Ist, after which he- worked for a month, but then the trouble recurred and he had to be operated upon. Counsel said that tho only question likely to arise was one of notice, ns no formal notice of tho accident was given until May 16th, though there was evidence that Ihe defendant know of the illness and its cause before this. Dr Perkins was called to detail the nature of tho in jury! He attributed the trouble to the accident and said that two operations had been necessary. 'The defendant said that he knew absolutely nothing about tho accident until Charman came back lo work seventeen or eighteen days after it occurred. He (hen promised to try and get him the insurance money, but found that the policy had run out and the company wonl'd pay nothing. On tho ground that no notice had been given him he declined to pay anything out of his own pocket. . Judgment was given for the plaintiff. Tho court was satisfied that the accident was the cause of the incapacity and that the plaintiff’s failure to notify his employer was no answer to the claim. Plaintiff was awarded £7 4s and costs, an item of 7s 6d for a medical certificate being disallowed.