ARBITRATION COURT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXIX, Issue 110, 30 June 1911, Page 6

ARBITRATION COURT.

CORONATION HOLIDAYS; (Per Press Association.) Wellington, Juno 29. The Arbitration Court, continued its session hero to-day. In the carpenters’ dispute, which was commenced yo'stcrday,- Mr Grenfell, representing the employers, opposed the men’s demands. He said it was a general complaint among men that .work was not constant; yet now they sought to : -further limit taeir earning opportunities. A week of live days would be a calamity to the men. He said apprentices wore inclined to malinger, ■knowing' employers had no power! to ; -deduct pay tor time lost. In regard to preference, employers had been delayed repeatedly through having to run to the union oliice to examine the ■ Employment Book before taking a man on. . The president said there were only 30 or 10 non-unionists in the trade. ' <.Anyone who said, under those circumstances ' that getting union men ‘involved delay, must be drawing on his imagination. . Mr Grenfell -said employers suggested a clause which would require observance or preference when unionists and non-unionists presented themselves for employhiient at the < same .time. ■ Evidence having been taken, the Court intimated that it would take time to consider its decision. ' The: Conciliation Board stated, a case for the ruling of the Court, as to whether masters and mates of vessels can apply to the Court as one •body for an award or must make separate application. After hearing argument by Mr Weston for the shipowners, and Mr Herdman for the Merchant Service Guild, the Court reserved its decision. Alfred Abraham Bate, a labourer, claimed £3BG from Joseph Noal, e( ? n ~ tractor, as compensation for injuries through falling down the hold of the steamer Rimutaka, suffering injuries 'to his head and neck and internal insuffered Irom neurasthenia. Hie question in dispute was the extent of .claimant’s Injuries. Aftbr hearing evidence tho Court assumed that Bates’ incapacity would continue for two years, and awarded a sum of £2OO in addition to the £72 already paid in weekly payments, .with costs' .(£7 7s) and disbursements..£ • )';• The Labour Department proceeded against Messrs Warded Bros., grocers, of AVellington, for alleged breach' Of .the grocers’ award, in respect, to holiday' overtime payment, -having given their employees a holiday on King’s Birthday (June 3). The master .grocers did not pay them overtime for work done on the afternoon of Wednesday, May 31, which under ordinary." circumstances would have been ; observed as a statutory half-holiday. •' Owing to a difference of opinion <qs, to the construction to be placed Voq the provision for holidays, j the ■ Department brought a test action 'against Warded Bros., who were charged with having failed to pay I their • assistants overtime rates for 4 working' on the statutory half-holi--1 day. Mr M. Holland appeared, for ‘ the,Department, and Mr T. S. Wes'•ton for the employers. His Honor asked if the Department •was nof. going to be represented by ■ counsel. Mr Bolland said the Department considered the question ■ such a plain one that they did not deem it necessary to employ counsel. His Honor: It might turn out anything but plain. It is not fair to ask 2 the inspector to come here and argue at all. Mr Bolland said he did not intend to argue, but merely to draw the at- ' tontion of the Court to the award. ■ It would likely be brought forward that it had been the custom in'the. ; , trade to work tho employees on L e half-day when the general holiday occurred in the same week, ■ and not pay them for it. • • Mr Weston said that the position ■was that tho grocers’ assistants had been in the habit, when one of ’ tho holidays granted by the award took fdace, of working on the weekly haifmliday, or, in other words, to follow the Act. Under the Shops and Offices Act, if i the general holiday was the workers were not entitled to tho usual half-holiday, and it was not observed during that week. The whole thing turned on the mpiuiiug of the words “statutory half-holi-'day.” In the award tho custom bad been to follow the Tho custom since 1902 had been to read;the provisions of the award as allowing the employer to work the ordinary weekly half-holiday. Under the Shops vand Offices. Act, when a general holiday occurred in any particular' week, the employer was entitled to exact 52 hours’ work from the employees. Mr Bolland said that under tho award the employers had to arrange the work on four days of the week ,between 8 a.m. and 0 p.m., and on the . half-holiday between 8 a.m. and 1 p.m; If the .defendant committed ■any brefich of the award if was by not fixing, the hours in accordance with clause 1 of the award, i His Hoiior said the Court would itake time to consider its decision.

ABOUT BLANKETS.

i Wo want to talk to you about blankets, and tell von that wo carry a .'good, stock of lloslyn, Kaiapoi, and 'Potone manufactures. Wc find that •wo have been selling them all through '.the season at the same prices as other ‘houses are quoting them now at “Big /reduction sale prices.” For instance, our single-bed size is 18s Cd a pair, ■5 per cent cash discount makes them (17s 6d \ our f size is 255, discount off [23s 9d; while our full size is 30s, and .the discount'makes them. 28s 6d. Put. [these alongside of other “sale prices” [and you’lf see where you are. When ■WE staivfcuogr { eaje you, wjll see some ;rcal rcaufiiihns. Wc are the Robin- \ sons.* . J .SiU -MlOi/.l • .< i.* ■ ■ ’!