ENFORCEMENT OF AWARDS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14668, 30 October 1909, Page 9

ENFORCEMENT OF AWARDS

IXTgUESTING DECISIONS. . (Pr.lt UxITED I ; HESS ASSOCIATION.) WELLINGTON, October 29. A judgment u( interest to shipowners was delivered by j)r A. ArArtliw, S.M., to-day. It-concerned a case, the Cooks and Waiters' Union v. the Anchor Shipping and Foundry Company,. Ltd., a claim fur a £10 penally for an alleged breach of ths union's award. It was contended that the defendant company employed one L. W. Rudmnn as ;i steward on hoard ths s.s. Nilcati, and paid him only at t.hc rate of £6 per month, instead of 510 pev month as provided. The clause of Hie award relied on by the union hud reference to una 11 steamship owners, and was ae fellow;! :-- " The following chad lie tho minimum wage paid lo cooks and stewards respectively :-Chief steward. £10: cook and steward, £10; chief steward's assistant, £4 ; chief cook's assistant, £•!." In the present case a cook and stcwavd was employed, and Rudmau was signed on (he articles as assistant steward. In evidence it was stated that the cook and steward gave orders lo Kudman. For the plaintiff union it was contended that as the cook and steward confined liimrelf to the galley, he was a cook, and that Kudman was therefore in tho position of a chief steward. In referring to this contention tho Magistrate said that the cook and steward as cook worked in the galley. As steward he ordered I he stores, was responsible for them, and gave orders to Rndinan. In hi.i opinion Kudman performed the duties of an assistant steward, his chief the cook and steward. Dr M'Arthnr therefore gave judgment for defendant. The secretary of the union (Mr Jones), who conducted tho case on behalf of hi* union, was granted ler.vc to appeal. Mr Henhnan appeared for tho defendant company. Dr M'Arthnr to-day gave his reserved judgment in the case of the Wellington Furniture Union v. Hoylund and Co., a claim to recover a £10 penalty for 'an alleged breach of the Wellington furniture trade award. The allegation was that defendants employed one Lkwellvn Deslnndcs as an apprentice without having him properly indentured. Plaintiff also claimed a, £10 penally for a second alleged breach—viz., employing one Harry Anslow at cabinet work and paying him only £2 per week of m 6 hours, instead of 1s 3jjd per hour as provided. It was contended on defendant's behalf that his work, was neither furniture-making nor cabinet-making: but a trade of its own. and more closely allied to the carpenters and joiners than to cabinet-making. " In mv opinion," remarked Dr M'Arthur. " I cannot declare this a distinct trade by itself, any more, than 1 con declare slaii-making a distinct trade. The queelion 1 have, to decide appears to me to be to which trade does'it belong?" Continuing, the Magistrate said : " The carpenter frames and puis together the structural parts of a building such as the walk, the roof, the floor, and the Dar(itions. The joiner finishes the building by supplying doors, stairs, ordinary man" tclpier-es, and clipboards, while the cabi-"f't-maker provides the furniture and high-class work, euch as elnbor?te mantelpieces, airtight, showcases for shoos, first(%s bank and shop fittings. The bulk, if not oil. of defendant's work appeared to he of the last kind. Jn my minion airtight showcases and high class fitting.: are; shop fiivn.it"i'.?, and as such are the nroner work of a cabinet or finT,ihiv-> maker, much as itairr'se making k Miih class ioinery. . Defendant to Inve thnu"ht that he w;\s mt s«hji">t to either the furniture linkers' or the ir)iner>-' awsnl. and acted accordingly, both in 'leekct-inr to indenture tho anprenti<v» and in employing an underrate worker without

a permit. As he may have acted in a bona fide belief as to his position I shall not impose tho full penalty asked for, bub as he must have profited greatly by his action, I cannot inflict a merely nominal penalty." The penalty accordingly for each breach was £5.