DOES IT OPERATE ?

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 8261, 25 October 1912, Page 4

DOES IT OPERATE ?

WELLINGTON PLASTERERS’ AWARD. QUESTION OF . INTERPRETATION. A question as to the interpretation of an award came before Dr A. McArthur, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, in a oaso in wliich the' Vv clung ton Plasterers’ Union proceeded against i. Foley and Sons* Bid., of Wellington, on a claim tor a AlO penalty for an alleged breach of the Wellington plasterers award. . 'i’ho union set out in its statement oi claim that the defendants employed .a plasterer named A. Barn upon country work at Blenheim, Ficton, and Hawera, in circumstances which required him to sleep away from homo from July Ist, 1912 to about Sexiteznber 12th, and failed to provide the man with a tent or other sleeping accommodation, as provided by The union was represented by Mr D. H. Findlay, Mr M. Myers appealing for the defendants. Evidence was given by the secretary of the union (H. Chalmers), that as far as he was aware there was no award in operation in Hawera. There were only four awards throughout New Zealand—Otago, Christchurch, Auckland, and Wellington. Hawera was not in the Wellington industrial district. A WORD TO UNIONS.

My Myers mentioned that he had not pressed the witness Chalmers on the point of whether the union had urgea tho Labor Department to take up the matter, because his Worship had intimated that he should not do so. Counsel—who did not want to apeak in any Complaining mood-r-submitted that it was hardly fair to an employer for a union to proceed against him alter tho Labor Department had refused its request, the reason being that the court which ought to interpret an award was tho Arbitration Court. If there was a dispute between a union and on employer, or between a union and the Labor Department ns to the interpretation of an award, tho union could go to the court which made tho award and obtain an interpretation. It would be much better for a union to adopt that course, for the relations between employers and unions would be much more harmonious. Counsel submitted that the information should be dismissed. Where an employer resided in or within ten miles of Wellington, the award was only operative within a radius of twenty-five miles. Should a worker bo sent to work further than that distance, the award did not operate. If tho award was to booperative throughout tho whole of tho Wellington industrial district why did it not say so? How could it be said that Bam had been employed in connection with the Wellington business at all when he was at Hawera? Whilst defendants were working on premises there, Hawera was for tho time being their. place of business. Barn was employed in the South Island at the time the Wellington plasterers* award. came into force, and he there made a contract to go to Hawera, therefore, it could not be said that he was working under the provisions of the Wellington award, AN ABSURD VIEW. Mr Findlay contended that it was absurd to say that a man could not get sleeping accommodation if ho were sent beyond twenty-five miles away, because in a radius of twenty-five miles a worker could generally get home, if necessary. If the view taken by Mr Myers was correct, then a whole area outside the twen-ty-five mile radius would be absolutely unprovided for. Could it be believed that the Arbitration, Court had intended this? In a case where a Wellington employer sent a man beyond the twenty-five-mile radius into a district where another award was in force, then that other award, according to a decision of the Arbitration Court, operated automatically in declaring what the wages of the workman were to bo. Surely it could not be suggested that the Arbitration Court was going to stultify itself by making a Wellington award limited ho so narrow a district as twenty-five miles? The court knew perfectly well that the nest award would be left in the same position. In the present case it had been proved that there was no award In operation, so decision must be given according to the Wellington award. His Worship reserved judgment.