Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

AN ARBITRATION APPEAL.

(Per.. Press Association.)- ■ WELLINGTON, this day. The Arbitration Court-.'yesterdaj-' heard the case of the inspector of .Awards' v. Denhard; an'rappeal from' a • \> judgpient m respect -of am '-alleged breach of the bakers' award. Mr.D. M.^Eindlay, who appeared for the -'Inspector ol' 'Awards, stated the circumstances. . .Defendant, a baker carrying on . bniainess m Wei---lington w.is charged, that 'mi December 23 he worked certain men between the hours; of 10 p.an.7and lnidhight. \ This., it was alleged, was an infringement .ot clause 9 cf the awdrd , which provide:-, 'that lid work .should lift d^ne between the hours of 10 p.m. and' "rhidiught, except on hot-cross ..bun*' nights, when double rates must be paid.- The-ques-tion was whether the clause provided for absolute prohibition ol work, between the hours under review. The Magistrate said, in" '.his' judgment,' that ciause 9 did not apply m this -case,, and th.U plaintiff could not succeed. Mr J. J. McGrath, for defendant, agreed thai the point to be decided' was'- as' to whether clause 9 absolutely prohibited work between .the hours' of 10 'p.rii. an 1 midnight. He contended that that clause referred to overtime, and nothing else.;'; If an employer worked hi* men during the day and up to 10 p.m., he was quite .entitled to rest from labor. After the work must' clearly ; refer to overtime, and" overtime' which was continuous with work done diiring the day. He submitted that there -Was.' no breach of clause 9. As a matter of fact, the Arcrk en the night of the 23od '"' December was done at-the' men's suggestion. After oansultation , with his ocllea.^ues. In* Honor said that 'Uhe jCourt hud decided that the effect oi clause -9" was -to prohibit all work- -..between the hours of 10 p.m. and midnight. The language of the clause made this quite clear? The Court decided that the Magistrate's decision: was wrong-, and directed that the case be se^nt . back to him to deal with as he. thought fit. Costs of (appeal; AVere fixed at £55 5., 7 7'

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PBH19100316.2.29

Bibliographic details

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXVII, Issue 12698, 16 March 1910, Page 5

Word Count
339

AN ARBITRATION APPEAL. Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXVII, Issue 12698, 16 March 1910, Page 5

AN ARBITRATION APPEAL. Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXVII, Issue 12698, 16 March 1910, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert