THE CARPENTERS' AWARD

Timaru Herald, Volume XIIC, Issue 13828, 13 February 1909, Page 2

THE CARPENTERS' AWARD

AN ALLEGED-BREACH. Yesterday morning, before Mr C. A. Wray, S.M., an alleged breach of the carpenters' award was heard, when J. Jackson and Co. were charged with having paid less than the award rate to George Koller, and the latter was charged with having accepted less than the award rate. J. Jackson and Co. pleaded not guilty, and Koller pleaded guilty. Mr Emslie appeared to prosecute on behalf of the Inspector of Awards and Mr Jordan appeared for the defendantcompany.

The case against Koller was -first partly heard. Koller pleaded guilty and said he had no excuse to offer, beyond the fact that he held it to be his first duty to provide .for his family, and to consider his duty towards society afterwards. He was aware that he was entitled to more than he had been receiving, but had not pressed his claim for more pay for fear he might lose his billet altogether. His Worship decided at this stage to hear the case against the defendant company so as to bring out all the facts.

Mr Emslie said that the carpenters' award provided for a week of 44 hours and for payment at the rate of Is 4d per hour. * Koller was a carpenter, and had been employed by J. Jackson and Co., making gates, hurdles, sheep and horse feeders, closets,' wheelbarrows, etc. —carpenters' work. For this he liad received £2 15s per week, which worked out at Is 3d per hour, or one penny per hour less than he should have received. The action was brought under section 13 of the Act of .1908 which gave His Worship power to deal with such a case instead of waiting for it to be dealt with by the Arbitration Court. The whole question was as to whether Koller was a carpenter. If the Court held that he had been doing the work of a carpenter he should "have been paid at the rate of Is 4d per hour, instead of Is 3d. Mr Emslie called,

George T. Koller, who said he was a carpenter by trade. In October, November and' December last he was employed by Jl Jackson and Co., with the exception of a fortnight in November when he was off for electioneering pusposes. He was employed chiefly in doing carpentry work, making gates of all descriptions, and such things as wheelbarrows, horse feeders, sheep feeders, water closets, etc. In his- opinion it required a carpenter to do such work, as he had done. He had been engaged in the erection of a temporary mill for the firm, in jobbing carpentry, and putting in fittings in a confectioner's shop. Was paid £2 14s per week, for 45 hours work per week. To Mr Jordan: Had been working 4 years and 8 months for J. Jackson and Co. In order to get the job in the first place he presented a letter of recommendation from a man in Christchurch, asking Mr Jackson if he could put him in the way of getting work. Witness volunteered the information that he was not good at joinery work. He was never iudentured as a carpenter, and did not, as a rule, work in the same shed as the carpenters. Was emplayed chiefly, outside the shop. The material out of which witness made the gates, was not prepared by the-mill. Witness did not think" that an ordinary hand (not a carpenter) could do what he had done. In his election nomination paper he described himself as "a saw mill employee." Witness at first objected to this question, but Mr Jordan said it was relevant, and his Worship said there was no reason why it should not be answered, though he did not want to go into election matters if it could be avoided. Mr- Jordan then put another " election ". question to ascertain whether the witness had not stated in reply to a questioner at oue of his meetings, that he had accepted less than the minimum wage for carpenters because he was a saw-mill employee, and did not consider himself a tradesman. • To this question his Worship objected saying that, he was not going into the election now. Mr Jordan: " I submit, sir, that it is relevant." His "Worship: "Well, I am not going to hear it, and that's all about it." Mr Jordan protested, but his Worship was adamant, and declined to go into election matters, saying that they had no bearing on the case in hand. Mr Jordan: "But I submit that it

is relevant and material to my case." His 'yVorship: "And I submit that it is not. All we want to get at is whether this man was working as a carpenter and whether he was paid according to the award. These side issues might be very interesting to the parties, but if we go into them there will be no end to the case." Mr Jordan bowed to the ruling of the Court, remarking as he did so, that he had desired, by that question, to bring out an important point. To Mr Emslie the witness said that since leaving the employ of J. Jackson and Co. lie had been house building, and was receiving Is 4d per hour. George Shelley, president of the Timaru Carpenters' Union, said he had seen- Koller employed at his work in Jackson's yard, and would describe him as a carpenter. No one who was not a carpenter could do his work. To. Mr Jurdaru.JiicLnot.go into Jackson's yard to watch Koller. Koller was not a' member of * the Carpenters' Union. P. Keddie, Inspector of Awards at Timaru, produced the Timaru Carpenters' Award, and said that from information received he had gone to Messrs J. Jackson and Co. and asked the manager if he intended to raise Roller's wages to Is 4d per hour. He said no, and at the request of witness he gave a letter to that effect. (The letter was produced. It stated that Koller had been employed as "a handy man," that he did not pretend to be a joiner, and that if they were compelled to pay the full wages to an incompetent man they would have to discharge him though they were reluctant to turn off a man who had been with them for some years, simply to take on a member of the Carpenters' Union in his stead.) For the defence Mr Jordan said that Kolier did not come under the carpenters' award at all. He was a sawmill employee, as ho had himself admitted when signing Ins nomination paper for election purposes, and he came under the saw-millers' award. Under this award the minimum race was Is 3d per hour lor first class machinists (which Koller was not) and Is per hour for second class machinists, and other workers over the age of 2L. 'J.ins was the class to which'Koller belonged and all ho was entitled to was Is per hour. His Worship: Why has he been paid more then Y Mr Jordan : Because the firm is generous to its employees, and does not keep them down strictly to award rates. At the present time the firm is paying £IOO more in wages than it need do if it kept strictly to award rates. Continuing, Mr Jordan pointed out that Koller.had worked 45 hours per week, which was the number specified under the sawmiliers' award, while the carpenters' award stipulated for a week of 44 hours. Strictly speaking he had only been entitled to £2 2s per week, not being an expert machinist, but he had been paid £2 14s. Counsel quoted from the " Timaru Herald " of December 16th, 1908, a ruling by Mr Justice Sim to show that a man who

was uot a competent tradesman was not constituted a competent hand simply because he occasionally did the work of a competent man, but while he. was employed doing a competent man's work he must be paid the full rate of pay unless he had a permit to work tor less. Assuming (but not admitting) that Koller had occasionally done tiuwork of a carpenter, it was plain that he had been tully paid for it, for he had received Is 3d per hour all through, whereas for the greater part of his time he should have only received is per hour. He had as a fact, been overpaid. His Worship: Is he still employed with the same firm ? Mr Jordan: No, he was discharged when Is 4d per hour was demanded Continuing, counsed said that Koller was simply a handy man, and Mr Justice Sim had laid it down that a toreman, who occasionally did journeymen s work, did not cease thereby to be a foreman. And so here, a casual man like Koller, who occasionally did 'carpenter's work, did not cease thereby tobe a casual hand. Mr Jordan called, C A. Schmidt, foreman for J. Jackson and Co., who said that the gates made by Koller were field gates. When he first asked for employment he said he could make gates if shown how. Ho was leallv a handy man, repairing fences, and driving the engine at times. He was principally engaged making Kates. , „ r . . T E Holdgate, clerk for J. Jackson and' Co. said he had heard Koller. at one of his political meetings, say that he did not consider himself a tradesman, that he was a saw-mill employee. Witness said he did not consider Koller a carpenter, as any handy man could do the work he had been doing- witness had made gates and hurdles as a boy, but he did not consider lnmsclt a carpenter. Mr Emslie said that the defence was inconsistent as his learned friend could not show that Koller had been paid as a saw mill employee. If Koller had been working under the award which entitled him to only Is per hour, whywas he paid £2 14s per week: f Mr Jordan said that he was an overpaid saw-mill employee. The firm had paid him a good all round wage to cover any carpenter's work he might

in giving judgment his "Worship said that the case was not a very serious one, but he thought there had been a breach. Mr Schmidt in his evidence, had said that Roller had occasionally done carpenters' work, but drew the distinction that it was not ski led work. It seemed to his Worship that Jackson and Co. should have applied for a permit to bmploy Koller at less than award rates. As the case stood, they had employed him at less than award rates, but had only paid one penny per hour less than they should hare done Still there had been a breach, and it would have been easy enough for them to have complied with the procedure under which they could have obtained a permit. He did not think that the breach had been caused by anything more than inadvertence and .t was only a technical .breach. Under these c.rcircumstances he would nnpqse a penaltv of 10s upon Jackson ami Co ana would record a conviction against RolC Mr Emslie asked for costs, and his Worship allowed £1 Is solicitors fee Mr Koller asked to be allowed his expenses as a witness in the case, but his Worship declined the application as Koller had himself committed a breach and had to attend the Court in any case to answer his own charge.