ARBITRATION COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14441, 6 February 1909, Page 12

ARBITRATION COURT

Friday, Fkiibdaut 5. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Sim and Messrs a 111-own (employers' representative) and J. A. M'Cullough (workers' representative).

APPLICATIONS FOR ENFORCEMENT.

Inspector of Awards v. Sargood, Son, and Ewen: Broach of the Hootmakers' Award.—Mr J. F. Woodhotise appeared for respondents.—lnspector Hollows explained that Messrs Sargood, Son, ami Kwen had employed a youth, D, Petrio, in their clicking department, without his bavin" been indentured. The fault was duo to a past management, and when it was learned by the prcecnt management that there was a 'mistake the omission was immediately rectified.—Jlr Wood house admitted the brcacli. The boy had been unindenlurcd for only al>out four and a-half mouths.— The court ordered that Iho breach bo recorded, and that respondents pay any costs incurred by the department. Inspector of Awards v. Sargood Son aiiuKwen: Breach of BootmakeiV Award.--Mr Woodhouso appeared for respondents.--Tlie Inspector (Mr Hollows) stated that, the loepoinlonts were charged with failing to give preference lo unionists.—Mr Woodhouse explained that the firm had discharged a. man, and bad taken on one w.ho was not a unionist, but who joined the union about an hour after he was engaged. There was a mutual preference clause between the employers and the union, but an employment book had not been provided for. i-Io would be. glad if the court would interpret tho preference clause—.Mr Hollows pointed out that the man who bad been discharged bad been iu the employment of the firm since 1904. and was a thoroughly competent man—more ho than the man taken on in lii.s place. Ho held Hint- the firm, before taking on a nonunion man, should have sought out- a union tradesman who was out of employment.— Mr Hollows was informed that at the time spoken of there were no union moil out of employment.—His Honor, after consultation with his colleagues, declared that an employer was no more bound to keep an employee any moro than a workman was bound to stay with an employer. The firm had a perfect right to discharge its employee, and had a right to rake on the other man. seeing that at the time there was not another available. The court considered that there luul been no breach of the award, and the application would be dismissed.

Inspector of Awards v. -lames Crust: Breach of Carters' Award.—lnspector Hollows explained (hat the respondent was a carrier and cartage contractor, who was in the habit of paying his men in small sums ami leaving the balance. Respondent had admitted the breach in a letter, in whioh lie stated that he iiad done all in his power to assist the drivers in his employment., but, owing to the prioe of feed, which was exceptionally high when he started business,. and the amount of money owing to him, lio. had teen unable to pay the men in full. After tivo years' trial lie had given ii]) business, losing over £100 in plant, etc. Mr Hollows siau'd that about £14 ivas still o«'ing to respondent's employees.—His IfoiMir said ilkit ilio case would 1)0 adjourned until the next sitting of the court

iii Diiuedin. If the wages due wen 1 puid meanwhile there waul J ho only a nominal penalty imposed, Imt if the wages were not paid the court would probably inflict a substantial penalty.

Inspector of Awards v. Jubilee Coal Company: Broach of Coal Miners' Award.—Air Bnish appeared for the respondent company. This case was partly heard on Wednesday. Yesterday evidence was given by John M'Luchlan mi liolutlf of !.ho, department. and by Robert Cuthbertsdn, James Christie, and A. liremner on behalf of re-

spondents. His Honor, after conferring with his colleagues, said: In regard 1o lite interpretation of llie award, we think thai if head coal is worked along with level coal it. must bo paid for according to pillar rata fixed by clause 3 of the award.

If the coal is worked separately from the pillar, then it must- be paid for at the rate fixed by the interpretation given by the chairman of the Conciliation Board in

1905, and if, during the course of any particular fortnight, the worker is getting pillar and head coal down, then the. employer, if ho so desires it. may pay the miner less than pillar wage, but must show that head coal is worked separately from pillar coal. Jn the present case it seems pretty clear that it was not worked separately, and that a breach liasf been established. —Mr Hollows said he would not

press for a heavy penalty. The application was of the nature of one for inter-pretation.—-The court, ordered that the broach lie recorded, and the company would be'ordercrt to pay costs of the proceedings, disbursements and witnesses' expenses, to he fixed by the clerk of awards. Inspector of Awards v. Christie Bros,: Breach ol Coal Miners' Award.—Mr Allen appeared for the respondents. This case was partly heard on Wednesday, and ordered to stand over in order that the Inspector of Mines (Mr Green) might, inspect, the locus in quo and give his opinion thereon.—Mr llollows reported that, Mr Green was absent from Duncdin, and his department, had not been able to communicate with him.—The ease was further adjourned to Monday, 15th inst.

OTAGO SHEARERS' AWARD. John Cooper and Francis Waddell, Regent street, Tiinaru, secretary and president; respectively of the Canterbury Shearers' Union, were proceedod against, by the Inspector of Awards, who claimed from each She sum of £2 due by the alleged fact that they had committed a. breach of the Otago Micarors award. Tho charge whs that rcspntidonfs "during the month of November did cause or authorise an advertisement, to be published in the Otago Daily Times newspaper, surh publication being calculated to defeat the provisions of seciion 3 of tho shearers' award or section 110 of " The Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1908." Mr J. F. M. Fraser appeared for the Inspector of Awards, and Mr W„ C. MacGregor for the respondents. Mr 1' raser said that the advertisement complained of was as follows:-" Advice to Shearers: Shearers are ad\ised not to engage. to shear for less than 18s per hundred and found, in any part of Otago." Tho Junes circulated extensively in Otago, and the advertisement; would reach the majority of shearers. At the time mentioned the shearers award was in force, which provuted that 16s 8d per hundred was tho minimum price that should be paid the shearers, ■illtl it was just on the evo of tho shpfiriri"" season. The whole question was ■ whether the advertisement; was a breach of section 110 referred to. The seciion set, forth that if. Hiring the currency of the award, any employer, worker, industrial union or member thereof took proceedings with the intention of defeating any provision of the award such person or union would bo (teemed to have committed a breach of the award, and would be dealt with accordingly, iheie was no doubt that, these two respondents were members of the union, and that they intended to defeat the provisions of the award. If the court thought that what they had done came within the scope of the section they should be punished:- It was fiiu tlii-t" he should state that both resnondents had facilitated the carrying out of the present proceedings so far'as was possible and had given the department liftio trouble. It was, he thought, the first case Of tho kind that, they had brought before the court. , Mr MacGregor submitted that the advertisement did not come within the scope of the award at all. The respondents admitted that they had inserted the advertisement, and were quite prepared to answer for it' /he award provided that tho price for shearing by hand should be 15s 8d per hundred, with rations, and it was suggested that, they had taken proceedings with the intention of defeating that. He submitted that no offence has boon committed. Tho 16s 8d referred to was really tho minimum price fixed by the court, Tho court's iuris.

diction to fix prices, lie rook it, was given by section 98 of the acl, by which the lour! had power to lix llio minimum rale of remuneration. He understood that what the court had done was lo fix the minimum rato. His Honor: A liighoi l price might be stipulated for, but not. a lower, Mr MacGrcgor; Precisely. Last year in Otago the shearers received as high as £1 per hundred. 1 do not know tlint that, would iilloct iL question of law, but my point is I lint. I horn is nothing | 0 prevent higher wages being arranged for, and, if that point is allowed llio whole substratum of the defence is gone. The wording of Ihe advertisement should l )n caret,dly looked at. Tho S 10.11 Cla Were only advised not to engage to i • Ugll, t subn.il, to do that if they chose| and, to follow the matter to it* bj. cal conclusion if ,t is o „ >nc , fi f(J a shoarei to take 18s it would bo equally an oilenee for the shearer to accept sum. The advice lo the shearers, even if acted upon coil d not defeat the provision, of the award, which only sets forth a minimum wage. He subletted that tI , 0 words tool; proceedings did not ,„n„„ „ ivi advico which might or might not. bo -w cepted. Another point he 'might oiniiln sise was that the Olago award did not ,'Ju to the majority of the smaller sheep-farmers That was their answer, but it seemed to him that the inspector had not proved his case The section under which tlio case w,is brought, did not particularly apply t 0 respondents, for there was no evidence before the court to show that (hey were workers, or members of the union. On that ground lie submitted that the application should be dismissed.

Mr It raser said that tho court had to took at tho intention of the two poisons concerned in inserting the advertisement. li* seemed to him that tho advcrtiEeme-nit was plainly calculated to defeat the provisions of tho awand. It seemed to hitu practically a statement that the award made in Otago was wrong, and that the shearers mere rccommended not lo accept the torms of that awa.rd, but to adhere to the terms of tho Canterbury award. If that were going to tako place with n.l[ awards he w«uld like to know where it was-going to end. The advertisement was an arbitrary one.

Mr S. Brown: What would bo the effect if that advice were taken in all sheds in Otngo?

Mr Fraser: The offcet would be a strike,, and the award would be dsfe-ated.

His Honor said he thought that the principal question before tliem was: Wore these men really workers? Mr Fraser remarked that if the court held the respondents were not workers, it only meant, that proceedings would bo token against them in another form.

Honor: Did tho iidverfement ap. pear in the Canterbury rcapers as well? Mr Fraser: No. Only in the Otago Daily Times.

The court decided that as tho respondents could not be regarded as either workers or employers tho case against them would be dismissed. Ilis Honor remarked that tho court would not express an oninion on the question of whether or not-the advertisement was inimical to the provisions of tho award, but if such au advertisement appeared in future, and was the means cf brineing about a strike, the gentleman responsible for its insertion would certainly find himself proceeded against.

The court was adjourned till 10 a.m. ®n Monday.