ARBITRATION COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14439, 4 February 1909, Page 4

ARBITRATION COURT

Wednesday, February 3. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Sim and Messrs S. Brown (employers' representative) and J. A. M'Cullough (workers' representative). L'Oltl'KXS.VriOX CASKS. The following dates were fixed for the houring of eases:—Thursday. February 4: Thomas Christie v, A. (Junvood. Wilson v. Mervyn (uppeul caw). Wednesday, February 10: William Walker v. Irvine and Stevenson. James Smith v. Thomson and Co. J. W. Welhaui or Kendal v. Phoenix Company. The ease Annie Wright v. Railway Department (amount paid into court £341 ss) was called, but the parties did not appear. DISPUTES.

Duuediu Tinsmiths and Sheet Metalworkers' Union.—Mr lireen, secretary of Ihe Trades ami Labour Council, appeared for the uuion; Mr W. Scott for a number of the employers.—Mr Breen said the whole trouble was that of wages. The parties had had several conferences prior to the dispute being filed, and the matters in dispute were now narrowed down to the wages.—His Honor asked Mr Scott if lie thought thero was any chance of settling the dispute.— Air Scott- said he was willing to do what he could io effect .1 settlement.—His Honor suggested a conference this week, and the ease was set down for Monday at 10 a.m.

Otago Hold, Restaurant, mid Tioai'dinghouse Employees' Union.—Mr fireen, for the union, faid that a conference had been held between representatives of the union and the Otago f,iconsed Victuallers' Association, and an agreement liad been arrived at in so far as the hotels were concerned. Mr foot I had arranged for a conference with th« voshumml-keepers on Friday eveninj,'.— His Honor: Have you seen the award recently arrived at in Chrisfchurch in connection with the restaurants and iea rooms? —.Mr Breon: ( have not seen it. Does your Honor surest that it. should he taken as the basis of an agreement ?—His Honor: You can gather from it what the idea of the court is on t lie subject of wages. a.nd it would probably he a. useful guide iu settling the matter.—Mr Scott said that so far as the clubs, boarding schools, and board-ing-houses were concerned, an application would be made to have llteui exempted, so that the ease would have to be heard so far as- those matters were concerned.—rfis Honor: We decided in C'hristchiirch that clubs could not be included,—Mr Scott added that so far as the restaurants and tea. rooms wore concerned a settlement might bo arrived at. —The case was set down for hearing on Tuesday next.

AFI'IiH'.VriOSS. Otago Metalworkers' Award.—Application to have name of Otago Iron Rolling Millc Company struck oil' list of employers bound by the metalworkers' award.—Mr Scott applied accordingly, on the ground that the compa.iy was working under an industrial agreement that covered all classes of em-' ployees The company had boon brought under the metalworkers' award in error, and ho asked the court to remedy the error. He understood the application' would not bo opposed.—Mr Bmen said the union had 110 objection to the name of the company beiiiT struck out.—The application was "ranted by consent.—-Sir Scott said he further desired to apply to the court to amend in ic same way the engineers' award, to which (lirsp poople had nlso been joined in error. —Ins Honor said he could not make the ainondmoni if flipro was any object ion on the parf of tlie Knginoers' Union.—Mr Brocn stiid lie had not boon instructed in tho inafier.—Jlis Honor said if Mr Fcotf; put in Jin application the matter would be dftfllt with separately during' the present silting-of the court.

KXFOiirBMKSTS. Inspector of Awards v. Hospital Trustees. —Broach of engine-drivers' award.—Mr White, foe the trustees, admitted a techuical breach of the award.—Mr Hollows, Tnspoctor of Awards, said lie was inslrucl»d that some time ago the Hospital Trustees advertised for a second class engine-driver. There were some 60 or 70 applicants, quite a number of whom in their applications stated that they were meinbors of the union, but a man named Laing, a non-unionist, was appointed to the position. After his appointment lifting joined the union. The reason adduced by the trustees for appointing Laing was that lie had previously had experience at Ashburn Hall.—Mr White said that, at the time of his appointment Lainj; was a member of the Tramways Union. He had been oniployed in the service of a tramway company as an enginedriver. Directly lie was appointed to the Hospital he applied for enrolment in the Engine-drivers' Union, and for some reason or other the application was overlooked by the secretary of the union. There was no attempt on Hie part of the Hospital Trustees to discriminate against unionists.— His Honor said a breach would be recorded. No fine would be imposed, but the defendants would be called upon to pay the court fe»s.

Inspector of Awards v. Helmkey and Son. —Breach of pastrycooks' award.—Mr Ilelinkoy, son., appeared mul admitted that a breach had been committed.—Mr Hollows said (hat l.liis was a case of blundering, or worse, on tho part of defendants, They worn warned some lime ago that if they insisted on employing a man who was not a member of the union action would be taken, but they persisted in employing him, with the result that they wore proceeded against. —The defendant said the man was previously in his employ, at; which time be was a member of the union. He loft, his employ, and subsequently witness again employed him.—His Honor: Why did you not get him to join the union again to save trouble? —Defendant said he preferred to take this man, who knew the working of the place, and he was a member of the union before. —His Honor: You employed a non-unionist after you had been warned, and set the act at defence.—Defendant said it was not his intention lo do jo. 110 was not against the law; lie supported it-Mr Hollows said (lie man had not yel joined the union.—His Honor said the defendant had practically set the law at. defiance. He would be fined iZ and costs.

Inspector of Awards v. Telford Weil'.— Breach of tailors award.—>ir Hollows appeared for the union.—Mr Stephens, for the defendant, said the apprentice referred to, William Guwi. had been indentured to a. tailor a! Lawrence who gave up his business. The indentures then had 18 months to go. H" then entered into the employment of another tailor in Milton, whom he served for nine months. This man also gave up business, which loft tho apprentice in the lurch. He came to Dunedin, and was out of work for six weeks; then he went to Weir, and usked to be taken on by him. lie said he had gone all over the town to get work, and could not get it. Weir tcok him on trial for a fortnight, and then engaged him as an apprentice, laying him 30s a week, which was 5s a week over the award rate. Weir thought that as the indentures had such a short tunc to go. and as hi* own circumstances were such tlut there was no doubt his condition would comply with the provisions of the award, it was not necessary to apply for the permit provdied for in clause 12 of the award. Weir admitted the breach, hut- contended that, it was little more than a technical breach, because his circumstances placed him in a peculiar [wsition to comply with tile award, for the re.isut that he did not employ a large number of hands. lie was on the board liimsolf. and gave personal attention to his apprentices. The young man himself was perfectly satisfied with his treatment. lie was learning the cutting, and he was getting full wages.— I) is Honor said the defendant bad no right to keep the lad on without a permit, lie would be fined £2, ami cofits.

Inspector of Awards v. 1). Samuel and Joseph Ayro.s. -Breach ot bakers' award — -Mr W. a Mac-G rexor appeared for defendant Samuel.-Mr Hollows said that Samuel employed Ayres as a second hand. ihe wages of a second hand were 50s a week, and this man was paid 45s.—Evidence was given by Joseph Ayres and Jesse Ilavmos.—Mr MaeGregor submitted that in order to find a breach it would be necessary to strain the provisions of the award. The man was really employed as a table hand, not as a second hand.— Mr Samuel wa.s further charged with failing !o have a copy of -the awr-m placed in his bakehouse.—Mr MaeGregor rjid not

admit (.lie offence.—Mr Hollows said that jus .Mr lliilly. who viaitwl the defendant's pr<?iTi ist's, iiau been callccl .away l:e had IK> evidence to oiler.- His Honor: Wo think u proper interpretation of the award is this: If iiu employer employ-. only two hands in hi.- bakehouse, and dres not himself perform tin' work of a journeyman rlii! lirst hand should bo ]>nid not less thai! £3 a week and the other worker not. less than £2 10s as second hand. It is not competent for an employer to have in his bakehouse a foreman at £3 and a table hand at £2 5.-. if ho has only two workers in his bakehouse, and ho himself is not foreman, limn the one man must bo foremail and the other second hand, YTo therefore hold there has been a breach of the award in the present ease, and impose a line of £2. In the case against Ay res we impose a. lino of £1. The "other case against Samuel is dismissed.

luspector of Awards v. T Kogo.—Breach of painters' award.—Tho defendant admitted the breach.—Mr Hollows said ho went to the defendant's premises, and found he had in his employ two journeymen and two apprentices. Defendant was entitled lo one apprentice to three journeymen, lie admitted the oU'encc, and said ho must, have overlooked the matter.—l'he defendant, in answer to the court, said that before Christmas he had sufficient jouronvmen to warrant two apprentices.—Fined £3, and costs.

Inspector of Awards v. G. Harrison.— Breach of bakers' award.—Mr Hollows said the defendant engaged a man to work for him. Subsequently the man joined, the union.—The defendant said the man worked for liini for half a. (lay. He then asked r-he man if ho was in tlx; union and the reply being in the negative he told the man he had bettor go at once'and join the union.—His Honor said the breach was very trivial. _ A breach would bo recorded, but no line imposed.

Inspector of Awards v. Ota go' Coal Miners.—Application to add a party (Green Island Mineral Conipanv),—Mr j. Huge appeared for the union in support, of the application.—Mr J. Loudon, on behalf of the company, said it had no objocl ion.—Order made, by consent.

Inspector of Awards v. D. Thomson Breach of bakers' award.—Mr Hollows said he would ask the court to record a breach. The defendant was entitled to one apprentice to threfe journeymen, but ho had two apprentices.—Tho court recorded a breach.

Inspector of Awards v. Jubilee Coal Company.—Breach of tho coal miners' award.—Mr Brugh appeared for tho defendant.—Mr Hollows said it. was contended t'hat head coal should bo paid for at tho same rate as stripping a pillar. Tho defendants took 'Id a ton off head coal, and it was held that they should have paid solid rates that is, that the 4d should not. have been taken oil'.-After lengthy (ind somewhat contradictory evidence had been given the case was allowed to stand over till I 1 riday for further evidence.

Inspector of Awards v. Christie Bros.— Broach of coal-miners' awartl. Mr Allan appeared for respondents. Mr Allan raised a preliminary point, concerning the intci(notation of the award, Ilcspondonts were charged with employing men in levels and not paving tlicm yardage- rates in addition io ordinary tonnage rates. Ho contended that the place tho union now declared was a- level was a bord, for it was ballot led for on several occasions, and was llion admitted to Ire a bord. He understood that the union now contended that because some lieading-i had been taken away the bord was now a level. Under one clause in the award it was stated that the width of bonis should Ire as established by custom, and if these were less than 9ft in width extra pay must be made to tho miners, Later on it was stated that, for narrow places extra yardage rates should be paid. Extra payment, it appeared from the award, was for narrow places— not for levels as levels. It was admitted that the place in question was 12ft. wide. There was no difference in any way between this bord and any other in the mine, and it had been regarded simply as a bord. Ho contended that extra payment could only lie made for a level plucc, and if a narrow place ii must nor be more than 9ft wide.—• His Honor said that, from the award, lie judged that if it were a Jevel they must pay for it; if a bord, they need not pay.— Mr Allan: Of course we say it is a bord.— Mr Hollows: The department claims that it is a level. With regard to the wonding of the clause, I maintain that this is only the minimum width that has been fixed. I am instructed that this point was talked of in conference bet-ween the miners' representatives and mine owners when the award came into operation. Then the question was asked of the mine owners: What- is a level? and the answer was that a level is aj place driven from a bord from which | headings are driven, of use as a main haulage road; the last place in a section should traffic not advance to oilier workings. The I qtiostion being asked, Supposing it is 12ft wide.' it was agreed that it did not matter if it was 20ft wide.—His Honor; When I was the ballot taken?—Mr Hollows: In •1 line.—llis Honor: It was specially balloted for, of coursu?—Mr Hollows: (inly as a .number.—His Honor: Why was a special ballot not taikon in accordance with the | award? What is the use of the union getting an award if it docs not carry it out? — Peter Campbell Was called to prove tho place was a level.—His Honor directed that the question should be referred to Mr LJi'een, mines inspector, with a request tJiat lie should Fettle the question. It was absurd, lie said, that time should be wasted oil that matter, which could be settled by Mr tircen in a few minutes. It was only a question of tact. —Mr Allan observed that. a good deal of weight would be'attached to the court's, decision. The present application Wits it. roundabout way of attempting to alfcci: a practice that had been in force for the last 20 years.—The case was adjourned until Friday next. The Inspector of Awards v. L. Morris and Co., Moray place.—Breach of tailoresses' award.—Mr J. F. M. Krawr appeared for the inspector, and Mr John MacGregor for (lie respondents.—Mr Fraser stated that the question was whether the following clause in llw award applied to apprentices:—

" When slackness of work or the exigencies of (lie trad" render it necessary to work short time the employer shall distribute the wurk as evenly as possible among all classes of workers as circumstances will permit, and in such cases workers shall only be paid for the time actually worked." The respondents were charged with employing Minnie Hawkins and Maggie Ritchie aa apprentices during November and paying less than the wage provided for them—£l 2s 6d per week. The respondents treated all of their employer's under the section of the award referred to. and made deductions from their wages accordingly. It was contended that apprentices could not be so paid: their weekly wage must be the minimum set forth in the award.—Mr MacGregor submitted that (he clause referred 1o did include apprentices. It would bo hard if it did not, for the employment of apprentices was i source of loss rather than profit — Lewis Morris having given ovidenco, the colli'!, reserved its decision.

Inspector of Awards v. Scoullar and Chishobn. furniture manufacturers.—Breach of ftunitino-tiiukons' award.—Mr J. F. M. Fraser appeared for the inspector, and Mr Jolm MneGregor for respondents.—Mr Fmser said t liitt respondents indentured apprentices, and these signed indentures providing that any time lost (holidays, etc.) would bo deducted from their wages. The rate fixed by the award made the provision usual in such cases for apprentices, and it was perfectly clear that, as shown by the court's decision ui the ease of tho Auckland engineers, that the award overode tho stipulations made in the indenture form.—Mr MacGregor argued that it did not. The apprentice had the right to claim the award rale of wages, but the employer had tho right to adhere to the conditions, of indenture papers so long as the former relations between him and his apprentice continned.—'flic court held that the provisions of the indentures were not consistent with rhe provisions of the award, and that respondents therefore could not rely on the indentures as against the award. It held, accordingly, that iv breach had been comimtted by respondents, but (as the department did not. Wish it) no lino would be imposed.

Inspector of A wards v. W. fi. Rcddell and Co.—Breach of the tailors' award.—Mr Eraser npponrnd for tlio inspector and Mr John MocGregor for respondents.—Mr t'raser said the respondents were charged with failing to pay Ihe award rate of wages to live apprentices. The circumstances were practically the same as ihe case against Morns and Co.—Mr MaeGregor said it was simply a- case of asking for an interpretation. j. here were many employers in the same position as Roddell and Co., who wore prepared to obey Ihe finding of the court. Since it was evident that a breach had boon committed. .he would admit the charge.— The breach was recorded.

Inspector of Awards v. Evening Star Company.—Breach c.-f lawmakers' award.— Mr J. V. 1(. Fi-aser appeared for the inspector and Mr MacGregor for tlio respondent company.-Mr Fraser said tlio application wo', for an interpretation of the award, llie question was whether persons employed in ihe Evening Star boxmaking factory ex'vtsively on the machines came within the scope of th;> award, which provided that such person*, who were apprcirticqs or had bceu 18 months (a-

gaged in the trade, should be paid 6d per hotrr. It- was contended by ihc union that persons working tlm machines and having been engaged in no other department of the trade were entitled to the waue .-luted. —R. Brec.n, giving evidence, said the question was brought under his notice in July of 1908. lie learned that three givls wore working on the machines but were not receiving 6d per hour. The giris had lnol, 'hs at tho work, so bo and Mr Ually made representations to tho manager of the factory, in consequence of whicll the court was asked for an interpretation. When this was received tho manager agreed to, pay ,|ie girls back pay « from the Winning of A t ;llu , they dttly received this and gave a ru-ccipt in full settlement of a li chilm u , in rraprrt thereto A little later they were dioihargcd. One of tho girls-Ellen Garbutt—had proceed against the company m order to recover back ,xiy M f lol n tho time the a.ward came into operation, but the ease was at present hold over i„ order that tho court might give an inkirprcta t.o.i of the clause. Mr AlacGregor declared that; the easo was not so simple. There were two classes of ivor-kerß in the factory —tho skilled workers who made boxes \>v hand and those what attended to tho machines. Tho lattor work could lie picked up by girls ill two or threo weeks' ti nu ,. The position taken up by the company was that tho wages referre<l to in the award did not- apply to machine work at all. Tliesa girls knew nothing about tho trade." Only girls eraployed as apprentices or wlio had been 18 months at tho trade wero entitled to 6d per houir. It was begging t.lie question to suggest t.hafc girls employed on tho machines were at tho trade. Tlicy were not. Tho clause was framed to meet the ease of regiitar tradespeople who wero put on to the machines. The threo girls referral to gave .receipts in full settlement of their claims. These iscoipts were presently objected to by Mr Holly, who said I hey should have been as from the Ist, of August only. It was in consequence of litis that the girls wero dismissed.—\V. Scott a-nd Carl Otto gavo evidence regarding the view taken of the matter at different conferences held in connection with tho. box-miking dispute.—R. Brcen, recalled, said that tho words " 18 months at the trade" were inserted so as to provide for machinists. Otherwise they wero sii|>erfluous, for ail tradesmen or women were first apprentices, and the term of their apprenticeship was Jangcr than 18 months.—The court reserved its decision. Inspector of Awajxis v, 11. Marsh and others.—Breach of coalminers' award—Respondents wore represented by Messrs John tinge and D. M'lnncs.—Mj - Hollows said that tho respondents wero truckers at Kartangata, who, at tlto instigation of ono Wlntaker, bad for the spaco of about one day gone out on strike. Their ringleader had been ;t man named Michel, who had Willi a number of otliors, cleared out soon after the incident. Tho truckcrs realised that, they had done a foolish thing, and were sorry and had endeavoured to mako amends. The relations now existing between tbom and tlmir employers—the" Now Zealand Coal and Oil Company— wore most cordial— I The court decided that tho cases should stand over till to-morrow. Tho court will sit again this inornin"' at 10 o'clock. °