ABBITBATION COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2823, 22 April 1908, Page 10

ABBITBATION COURT.

PAYMENT FOR HOLIDAYS. WELLINGTON, April 9. The Clerk of Awards to-day read four reserved judgments of the Arbitration Court respecting alleged breaches ot awards. The first decision reported was the Inspector of Awards v. BlundeU Bros. (Ltd.) the New Zealand Times Company Ltd. and the Wellington Publishing Company (Ltd.). His Honor Mr Justice Sim, m the course of his judgment, said these eases were heard together, and tne same question was involved m each case as to the construction of clause 3 of the Wellington, Typographical award m connection with machines. Clause 3 provided that any operator or apprentice required tp work on Christmas Day, or on Good *riday should be paid at double rates, and it required to work on New Years Day or Labour Day should be paid at time and a-half rests, and a corresponding rate tor piecework. The respondents employed their linotype operators at the weekly wage prescribed by clause 4 of the award. They were required to work and did work on Labour Day, but were only paid half-time m addition to their weekly wage, for the work done on Labour Day. The question whioh the court had to determine was whether an operator was not entitled to be paid at the rate of time and a-half tor this work m addition to the weekly wage. The court held that h© was. To hold otherwise and accept the construction wiiicn the respondents invited the court to pu* on the clause would lead to this result: An operator who ie a weekly wage hand is entitled to be paid his full weekly wage without doing any work on Labour Day, and if he works on Labour Day he would be paid for the work done on that day one-half only of the rate which he is paid for work done on other days. Ihe construction contended for by the respondents would also produce a remarkable difference between the rate to be paid to weekly hands and piece-workers for work done on labour Day. A piece-worker was not entitled to be paid m respect of holidays

save for work done on such holidays. For work done on Labour Day a piece-worker was entitled, therefore, to bo paid m terms of the award at a rate corresponding to time and a-half. But according to the respondents' construction- a weekly hand was only entitled to be paid at the rate of halftime m addition to his weekly wage. Ira other words, a piece-worker was entitled to be paid at least three times as much as a weekly hand for the very same work when it was done on Labour Day. It appeared to the court that a cpnstruction. which provided such results as those could not be the proper construction to be put on language of the award, and any custom^ to pay m accordance with such a construction was inconsistent with the provision of tho award. A custom could not be relied on if it was inconsistent with the provisions of an award. The court held, therefore. that the respondents had committed » > breach of the award by paying the workers : m question at the rate of half time only i m addition to their weekly wage for work j done on Labour Day, but as the cases had I been brought to have the question settled it did not impose any penalty. The respondents must pay the cost of the proceedings (£5 ss), with disbursements and witnesses' expenses to be fixed by the clerk of awards m equal shares. COMPULSORY^UNIONISM. Inspector of Awards™. Luke Mounter.— The respondent was engaged by R. and E. Tingey and Co. (Ltd.) as a signwriter and I glass embosser for two years from - the 27th of May, 1907, and he had been work- ; ing for the company since that date. In June, 1907, the court made ah award \jn connection with the painting trade, including" a provision whioh embodied^ an agreeI ment made by the parties/ giving ppefer- '. ence to unionists, and providing that "all ' journeymen ait present working for any I employer and who are not members of ; the workers' union shall become members : within two weeks from the tin_e of thi3 ' award coming into operation."' The respondent had refused to join" the union, and the proceedings were brought to enforce the provisions of the award. The court held that the respondent had com- ': mitted a broach by refusing to join tho j union, but it did not propose to impose ; any penalty at present. If the respondent i within 14 days from the date of the judgment (Bth April) did all that was necessary i on his part to become a.-n&mber of tho • union a breach * would be -recorded; If ho . failed to do so the court would .consider • what penalty should be imposed, and tha i further consideration of , the case was ad- • journed to the next ' regular sitting of tho ■ court m Wellington. 'The respondent was ordered to pay the inspector's disbursements for the fees of the court. ! Inspector of Awards v. Arthur R. Catta- ' nach. — This case was' similar to the i»>t, and the court made an order m like terms.