BREACH OF THE CARPENTERS' AWARD.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LV, Issue 13917, 20 March 1909, Page 5

BREACH OF THE CARPENTERS' AWAR D.

I Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, March 11). I .At the Arbitration Court to-day further evidence- was taken in iho case in which \\. G. Parson, was .barged AAith a breach of the pren.Tence clause of the carpi Miters' award. On the previous day Parsons had admitted employing certain Avorkmen ior special Avork. These nitii Avere not unionists, but ivrerenee. to the union's employment hook showed there were at tlio time no competent unionists out ot work. To-day Parsons said he had examined the book the day before employing the men in question. Judge Sim said Parsons' evidence conflicted with that given previously, which was that he' had examined the union's book the day after employing the men. A majority of the Court found that a brteach had occurred. Mr S. Brown, employers' representative, said his opinion.. Avas that no man should be convicted on the evidence of the employment book. Th<> facts given therein Avere not sufficient to indicate. Avhere workmen could be found. The book should contain much fuller information, and the secretary of the union should assist employers in the search for competent union men out of employment. JUDGE SIM AND HUMAN NATURE

Further evidence was taken in the charge against Humphries Bros, of a breach or the preference clause of tho carpenters' award. G. Humphries said his brother, L. Humphries, at present in England, had engaged the man in question. The case Avas ordered to stand over till L. Humphries returned. His Honour said it seemed to him to como back to the same question, that employers might save themselves a great deal of trouble by declining to employ men until they had satisfied themselves that applicants were members of the union. Mr GrenfeJl, who appeared for Humphries, said it placed an unduly heavy burden on employers to ask them to search for unionists when competent men were waiting at their doors, not only in New Zealand but elsewhere. First-class workers did not require to be bolstered up by unions or have their rights maintained by them, and therefore declined to join'iinirins. His Honour asked if Mr Grenfell thought the workers would be better off without unions.

Mr Grenfell said he believed they would. The workers had in the past ground for complaint, perhaps, but the great body of employers treated their men fairly. His Honour said that, if so, Wellington was a fortunate place, for human nature was different here from human nature jn other parts of the world, if employers had reached that stage of perfection. Julius Adolphus Lutz, hotelkeeper, was convicted of a breach of the cooks' and waiter's award for employing a man as porter and not paying him porters' wages. The defence was that the man had not been engaged as a porter, but as a rouseabout. No fine was inflicted.