ARBITRATION COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13078, 14 September 1904, Page 7

ARBITRATION COURT.

ENFORCEMENT." OF AWARDS.

Most of yesterday was occupied by the Arbitration Court in hearing tho finish of the case brought by the Inspector of Factories against Mollison and Co. Two other cases—in which W. AVaddell (Oaniaru) and J. H. Milligan (Oan'ani) were respondents—were csllcd. and as they are practically identical with MolliHm's case tho decision in that will be taken H3 a decision in them. In the case of Mollison and Co., the application was for tho enforcement, of the tailors' .award, respondents, it was clleged. having deducted three days wages from David Gillespie, who was employed by tlicm'as a man, tho three days for which tho deduction was mado being Christmas Day, Boxing Day, and Jsew Year's Day. Tho case had been previously partly heard, nnJ it was then pointed out tliut what was really required at the hands of the court was an interpretation of that portion of the award ccveiing tho matter in question. There was also another case in which tho employee irom whose wages the deduction had been mad'e was named Crow.

Mr Stephens, in place of Mr Sim, appeared lor the Inspector ol Factories, and Mr W. Scott for respondents. Tho latter gentleman proceeded to call evidence.

David Gillespie, journeyman tailor in the employ, of Moliiscn and Co., scud ho was a weekly wago man, and was not paid for holidays or slack time. Ho had been about 12 lTtoi:tl)s 011 weekly -wages. Before that lie was doing piecework. He did not expect to be paid w?gc3 for idle time or holidays, but lie e;:pcctcd the award to bo carried out. lie had never asked to be paid for holidays or lost time, and did not anticipate being paid for holidays or idle time. He thought if a man was put on as 'a week's wage man he should yet a week's wage. If ho was off he would not get paid. He knew he would 1 liot get paid for a full week if iio did not work it. 110 had never been paid outside the work lie had performed. Ho received time and 'it-quarter for overtime.

To Mr Stephens: All Mollison's men were or. v.-cckly wages. The firm could put all their hands on piecework it they liked.

Henry Dickinson, journeyman tailor in the employ of J. Jenkins and Co., said he was ft weekly wages man and was not paid for holidays or idle time. Ho liad discovered that if he liked to push for it he could get paid, ■whether ho worked or not, being a weekly wage man. He aiovcr liad expected to be paid lor wprk lie did not do. . Har'ech Frapwell, employed with Hendry and Son, said he was a weekly wages, man, and liad been paid for holidays, but not for about 12 years. He had not been paid for idle time, and did not think it was the custom to pay for it.

James Crombie, master tailor, said he had never paid days wage men or weekly wage men for holidays or idle time. It was not the general custom of the trade to pay for work not performed. James Hendry, of the firm of James Hendry' pud Son, said ho had not been in the habit of paying days wage or weekly wage men for holidays. He understood it was not the general custom to pay for these. No man liad complained to him about not being paid for holidays since tho award was 'made.

This closed the evidenco on behalf of applicants. , David Young Miller, the first witness callcd bv Jtr Stephens, said ho wa3 foreman in tho employ o! Brown, Ewing, and Co., and was paid by the week. He received payment for holidays, and for a day or two if he was on tho sick list. In previous employments, as a. daily wages man, he had not been paid for holidays. In case of slack work the pieceworker, was put off and the weekly wages men kepi, on. That was generally the case.

To Mr Scott: lie was not paid for overtime. There were two female wage.s hands, and they ■were paid for statutory holidays, lut_ not for idle time. He never paid for holidays previous to':joining Brown, Ewing, and Co. Jonathan Alexis O'Brien, employed with W. Aitker. and Son, said as a weekly wago mail at Feltliani's he always got paid for statutory holidays. Previous to that he had been a pieceworker. He got no overtime. The practicc was to give the weekly wages man all lie could do, and let the pieceworker do what tho weekly vrages man could not. llis Honor: That sets asidfc the distribution

claufe of the award. Witness: It is never observed.

Mr Slater pointed out that if the only work in an establishment was si dress coat a girl could not be put on to it, and would therefore got no> work at all. His Honor: Fair distribution does not necessarily mean .ccual distribution. William Wyneficld, employed with Mr Warsaw, stated that he was a weekly, wages Iran, and waa paid for tho statutory holidays iviid overtime.' Working for Mr J. Wood, he was not paid for holidays. The weekly wage men were usually kept fully employed. Mr Warsaw had made a very fair distribution of the work in his establishment.

Mr Stephens mentioned that he had another witness, who would say he had always been paid 'ior statutory holidays at Ilallenstein'a and Brown, Ewing, and Co.'s, but it was not deemed necessary to call this witness.

■ Mr Scott and Mr Stephens then briefly addressed the court, after which his Honor intimated that a decision would "fca given later on.