BREACH OF AWARD.

Timaru Herald, Volume XCVIII, Issue 18084, 19 June 1924, Page 6

BREACH OF AWARD.

LOCAL BUILDER FINED. At the Timaru Magistrate’s Court, yesterday' morning, berore Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M., Alfred Koundfiill was proceeded against by the New Zealand Amalgamated Society of Carpenters’ and Joiners’ industrial Association of Workers, for employing a man at a lower rate of wages than that fixed for carpenters under the award. Mr Emslie, representing the plaintiff Association, stated that the defendant had employed the man in question, on the strength of a lowerrate permit obtained from the secretary of the local Union. The award under which they were 'working" Vas a Dominion one, and superseded all the local awards. Under this -award local secretaries did not have the power to grant under-rate permits, • notice of such application having to be forwarded to the Dominion Carpenters’ and Joiners’ Industrial Association. The defendant would possibly be; lgnorant of this fact, and had no’ doubt been acting quite in good faith, in employing the man on the local permit. The action was being brought against defendant in order to make the requirements of the award in this direction,’ more generally known and to serve as a warning to other, builders in South Canterbury. For the defendant, Mr W, D. Campbell, stated that -the'' secretary of the local Union had not been familiar with the requirements of the new award, and had apparently acted in good faith in issuing a permit. The man concerned had beeii a coffinmaker in England, and had come out to New Zealand as a nominated immigrant. On arrival in the country he had been unable to get employment at his trade, and took on anything that he could find. The defendant had offered him work if he qould obtain a -•-rmit, this he applied for and obtained. He was a handy man with tools, on certain classes of work, and was employed at £3 per : week. Unde? the circumstances he considered. that the defendant was quite justified m assuming that he had taken reasonable steps to protect himself. A. J. Waterson, against whom was preferred a charge of having accepted a lower wage than,, provided ~ for by the award, also gave evidence. Mr Golding, secretary of the Timaru Union/ stated that he was always opposed to the granting of permits. The Labour Department had stated that lr witness would not issue a permit they would do so themselves. When the man’s position was explained lie agreed to- do so. The local Union had not been notified of the Dominion award, and at the time he understood that in issuing a permit lie was acting quite within his rights. . The Canterbury District Secretary, also gave evidence regarding the Dominion award, which now consolidated the district awards. Under the old award a local secretary had the power to issue permits. , The Magistrate said that no. doubk an innocent breach of the award had been committed. .In 1 the case .against Waterman, judgment would be given for plaintiff without penalty. He was quite satisfied that Mr Rouudhill had acted innocently, although strictly speaking, lie ought to have known better. The blame really lay with Mr Golding, who also appeared to have acted innocently. It was a very di - ficult matter to keep track of all the different awards, and the alterations that were 1 constantly bemg/made/aiid he did riot think it was fair to handicap a man with a punitive penalty foi an innocent mistake-. The defendant would be fined Is, together with professional costs. ‘ '/_