ARBITRATION COURT.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LIV, Issue 13672, 10 April 1908, Page 5

ARBITRATION COURT.

IMPORTANT POINTS SEtTLEP i: ? Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, April 9. The clerk of Awards to-day read four reserved judgments, of #ie Arbitration Court . \ respecting' alleged breaches of awards. * " ' HOLIDAY PAY. - The first decision related to the case Inspector of Awards v. Blundell Bros., Ltd., the New "Zealand Times Co., Ltd., and the Wellington Publishing Company, Ltd. His Honour Mr Justice, Sim, in the course of bis judgment, said these cases were. Heard together and the same question was involved' in each case as to the, construction of, clause 3 of the Wellington typographical award in connection with machines. Clause 3 provided that an operator of apprentice required to work on Christmas Day or Good Friday should be paid at time and a half rates, and a corresponding rate for piece work. The respondents employed their linotype operators at f , the weekly wage described ...by claus^.,4 of the award. They were required to work on Labour Day, but were only paid half-time in addition, to their weekly wage for the work done on Labour Day. The question which the court had to determine was whether an operator was not. entitled to be paid at the rate of. time and a half for this, work in addition tsythe weekly frage. The, Court held that he was. To Jiold otherwise and accept the* construction which the respondents invited the Court to put on the clause would load to this result : An operator .who is , a weekly wage hand is entitled to be paid his full wage without doing any work on Labour Day, and, if /he- woiks~ on* Labour Day he would be paid for the work done on that day one-half only of the wage which he is paid ,for work done on other days. The n construction contended for by the respondents would also- pr6duee/.a v remarkable difference between the rate to be 1 paid to weekly hands and piece-workers for work done Labour Day. A piece-worker was not entitled to be paid in respectf of holidays save for work done on "such holidays. A piece-worker was entitled therefore to be paid in terms of the award at aerate* corresponding to time and a half; but "according; to the -respondent's construction a 'weekly hand was only entitled to be' paid at the rate of half-time, in /addition 1 to his weekly wage; in other words, 'a, pieceworker was entitled to be* paid at least three times as tntreJi as a weekly hand for the very same work when . it was done on Labour pay. It appeared to the Court that a construction "which provided such results- as those could not be the proper construction to be put on the language of the awards and any custom, to pay in accordance With such a construction was inconsistent .with the provisions of an award. The Court held therefore that the respondents had committed a breach of the award by paying the workers in question. at the rate of half-time, only -in addi&dn ( to their weekly wage for work done on Labour Day, but as the cases had been brought to have tho question settled it did not impose any penalty. FORCED TO JOIN A," UNION. Judgment was thtfn given in tho case Inspector of Awards v. J^uke Mounter. The respondent was engaged by R. and E. Tingey and Co., Ltd/, as a signwriter and glass-embosser for two years from* May 27, 1907, and h& had been working for the company since that date. In June, 1907, the ,Cbiirt made an awartd in connection with the painting trade, including a provision which embodied an agreement mado by the parties, giving^ preference to unionists, and providing that all journeymen at present working for any emjDloyer and who are not members ,of the workers' union should become members within two weeks from the time of this 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 committed a breach by refusing to join the union, but it did not propose to impose any, penalty at present. If the respondent within fourteen days from the date of judgment, did all that was necessary on his part to become a ber of the union the breach, would merely be recorded. If he failed' to do so the Court would consider irhat penalty should be imposed. Further consideration of the case was adjourned tb the next regular sitting of the Court in Wellington. The Inspector of Awards v. Arthur R. Cattanach. Thi& case was similar to the last, and the Court made an order in like, terms. . >