INCONSISTENT.
JUDGE COAIM ENTs ON DEPARTMENT’S ACTION. (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, this day. The action of the Department of Labor in bringing what was described as “a purely technical c-n-d very trivial ease” before tbo Arbitration Court, while at the same time tliev had allowed grocers at 'Sumner a,nd Now Brighton to openly flout the. law was the subject of sharp comment by’ .Mr, Justice Frazer in the Arbitration .Court to-day. Judge Erazilr, said the Court was at a j loss to understand why the department brought such an actio-a, when on the evidence before them they must have understood it was most, imlikcty that any Court would impose a penally or regard the matter as anything but a very trivial and excusable breach. It seemed strange that action should have been brought M'lien oalv the otluc day at Christchurch the Court was informed that for several weeks—for months in fact—the Department had allowed grocers in New Brighton and Sumner to flout tho award in eonneclio-n with the closing day. Some grocers wanted to keep the award, hut were forced into freaking it by the action of the Department. This had been going on for weeks and months. • Why no action bad been taken passed comprehension.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PBH19251126.2.143
Bibliographic details
Poverty Bay Herald, Volume Li, Issue 16894, 26 November 1925, Page 12
Word Count
206INCONSISTENT. Poverty Bay Herald, Volume Li, Issue 16894, 26 November 1925, Page 12
Using This Item
The Gisborne Herald Company is the copyright owner for the Poverty Bay Herald. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of the Gisborne Herald Company. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in