INTERESTING TEST CASE

New Zealand Times, Volume LII, Issue 12094, 23 March 1925, Page 7

INTERESTING TEST CASE

IN ARBITRATION COURT ALLEGED BREACH OF PLASTERERS’ AWARD. FIBROUS OR SOLID? A case of alleged breach of the Wellington plasterers’ award was heard at the Supreme Court on Saturday before the Arbitration Court-—His Honour Mr Justice Frazer (president). Mr W. Scott (employers’ representative), and Mr Hiram Hunter (workers’ representative). Action was brought by the inspector of awards against Granilite, Ltd., and a penalty of £lO was claimed, it being alleged that a man in the employ of the company was engaged in fixing fibrous plaster with solid plaster, though he was not a solid piaster journeyman Mr R. T. Bailey prosecuted, and Mr R. R. Kennedy appeared on behalf of the company. EMPLOYEES TREATED WELL. Mr Bailey said that the company treated its employees well. There was no question about that. Indeed the man in question was paid considerably more than the award rate for journeymen plasterers. But the case was brought in order to protect those men who had served their five years period of training, but were now entitled to less than the wage paid this man who had not served an apprenticeship to the trade. The object of the award was to secure plenty of skilled journeymen for the trade. “A STUPENDOUS INTERFERENCE.” Mr Kennedy stated that the man in question had been eight years on fibrous plaster work, and was better qualified for the work than any man who had served five years on solid plaster work. The action, he contended, involved a stupendous interference with the rights both, of the employers and 1 the men, inasmuch as it was aimed "at preventing a skilled man doing the work he was skilled in. He urged that the award did not make this particular man’s employment illegal. He might he bound, if solid plaster work was in question, hut not when he waq solely engaged on fibrous plaster work. NO SPECIAL PROVISION IN LOCAL AWARD. . Mr Justioe Frazer pointed out that there was no special provision for. fibrous plasterers in the Wellington award; whereas in most awards there was a separate' section for fibrous plasterers. Fixing fibrous plaster with solid plaster was, moi’Sover, considered as sond plaster work, even when there was a fibrous plasterers’ award. Clause 17 of the Wellington award showed definitely that the award did not meet the case of fibrous plasterers. Was there any question, he asked, with regard to the man being a member of the union? Mr Kennedy said that the man was a union member. Mr Bailey pointed out, however, that other men concerned were not members of the union, and this man’s case had only been taken as a test case. The court reserved judgment; His Honour saying that as the matter was one of more than local interest their decision should be put in writing. The court . adjourned till 10 o’clock this morning. '