LABOUR

Timaru Herald, Volume XIIC, Issue 13683, 27 August 1908, Page 5

LABOUR

UNEMPLOPED IN GLASGOW.

Piress Association-By Telegraph-Copyright . LONDON, August 26. -The Lord Provost of .Glasgow, etiatee that the) number of unemployed is beyond all previous expei'iVriee. ARBITRATION COURT. Per Press. Association. - WELLINGTON, August 26. At the Arbitration Court to-da.y Thomson, Lewis- and Co., aerated water manufacturers, were charged with paying less than the award rate to two machine bottlers. .Mr Lewis stated that -just after the award was announced, lie found there was no provision to teach men machinebottling.. One ;of the men fell sick and he had to teach a. man to do the work. The Court .decided simply to record a breach, in the case..; Humphries Bros, were cited for a breach of the- award in the plasterem'. dispute :-in having employed- a ndn-nnionist plasterer. The Court, described ihe case as trivial and simply recorded a breach.. J. Rod, butcher, was cited* for employing Edgar Cornelius at lees than the' award rate.; Mr Rod said that Cornelius; was not competent to earn the usual; rate and; the Court held- that the breach had been ' committed. deliberately. -,A; fine of £5 was imposed on the respondent.and against Cornelius a, breach was simply recorded. A similar case was that against Mr McManus for paying, less than the. award rate to his cook.and his waitress, Maggie ,-, Whiteford and Emily Hyland, respectively. .The respondent, ]icensee of the ladway Jiotel, had admitted- the. facts, but • had. refused to pay the arrears. :Neither of the respondents, the cook and the -waitress,; knew what the award; rate was. The respondent was fined £5 in .respect of the two cases and breaches were recorded-in : the cases-of the' two. employees. Charles . Bf. Williams, hotel-keeper, ■ was. r iined. £2' for employing John-Stockbredge: at-less than the award rate >of pay. : Stqckbredge was fined 10s. The Levin Meat:and Gold Storage Company was ; . fined .£2 for ".employing Clias. Bolton -'at 'less than the; .award rate. Bol-ton-was .-."fined 10s. The Court'was asked to decide whetliar.the employment of o. waiter, for one week ;-!at.3os was a breach of the casual; clause of the award which fixes the. wages ;of; casual labourers a-tlCs a day Jpr.the .lirst-three days, but after that, at .ordinary wages. The* Court held, that a t werfdy -contract was not casual labour. !v - ; ; ■