ARBITRATION COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 8984, 18 July 1907, Page 3

ARBITRATION COURT.

* The Arbitration Court sat again this morning, ami continued the hearing of applications tor the enforcement of awards. Mr Justice Sim presided, with Messrs Slater and Brown. Baker and Company were cited by the inspector under the Tanners' award for paying less than Is per hour, the award rates, to certain employees below twenty-one years of age. The respondents were fined £3 and costs. In the case against Moore Bros., cited by the General Labourers' Union for not paying overtime, Mr A. Pattereon appeared for the Union, and Mr J. A. Flesher for the respondents. Before the case opened Mr Patterson drew attention to the provision that a solicitor could only appear for one of the parties with the consent of both, and said he had not been consulted or advised upon Mr Flesher's appearance. His Honor said that time after time it had been decided that that provision did not apply to enforcement cases. There had been hundreds of occasions on which it had been brought up and decided in that way. Tho case then proceeded. Mr Patterson explained that Moore Bros, were contractors, who, at the time of the offence, held a large drainage contract. A number of men were employed overtime, but were paid only Is an hour, the' regular rate, instead of Is 3d, the proper overtime rate. G. Lyons, called by Mr Patterson, stated that he had never been underpaid. As a matter of fact, he bad been overpaid to a small degree, owing to the way the time was calculated. Mr Patterson applied to the Court for an order that the respondents should produce the time-books and paysheet. His Honor said it would be sufficient if Mr Patterson called a witness and demanded the books. One of the advantages of the infip?ctor conducting the cases was that he could inspect the books whenever he wanted to. B. Moore was accordingly called, and produced the b:oks. He stated that in cases where a man was credited with eight and a half hours he would be paid 8s 6d, because the half-hours extra were nearly always edd periods of ten minutes to twenty minutes each. The time-keeping system used was to mii crease the time crrdi'ed. When a man worked four hours on Saturday he was credited with five, and if he worked three hours extra he was credited^ with four. This increased time was paid for at •ordinary rates. Mr Patterson submitted that the book must be. taken as showing the actual time worked, whatever the system. His Honor said that was not co. The witness had explained the system, and his explanation was the evidence and mu«t be taken as the fact. Moore was Mr Patterson's witness, and he must not be argued with. If Mr Patterson could not understand the case he should have allowed the inspector to conduct it. Mr Slater .said that this so<rt of thing amounted to putting the man in the box and making him tell lies. To Mr Flerh^r: He had followed the same system for fifteen years, and it was always to the advantage of tbe men. The firm did not split hail's with the men. and frrtjuently the men had come back and told him they were overpaid. Witness said he often paid some of tW men if they h^d some extra dirty or difficult work to do. The case was dismissed, the Union to pay £2 2s costs to the respondents. Five cases against employees of the respondents, for accepting insufficient wae~s, were withdrawn. The men made an application for costs for their loss spf time, to be paid by tho emp'oyers. Mr Patterson opposed the application, as the men had not fulfilled his expectations in the direction of their evidence. The Union was ordered to pay the four men who did not give evidence 16a each as witnesses' expenses. Edmonds and Page were cited for dismissing an employee without notice. C. Page stated that the man in question was engaged for a specific work, on the understanding that he would not be employed when it was finished. He was paid off at the end of it. and the Union then demanded a week's wages in lieu of notice. Mr Thorne said that fhe employee had made a stateent that he knew his engagement terminated with the work in nand. .. The Court decided that Edmonds and Page had committed no breach, but the "Union was justified in bringing the case to have the point settled. The Union withdrew the case. AY. T. Cronin was proceeded ag ain sjt; by the Inspector, under the Coaehbuilders' award, with tailing to indenture an apprentice. He was also charged with employing an extra helper m the paint shopHe pleaded that the failure was- an overnight. The deed was in a lawyer s hands, but was not signed. Inspector Bagger stated that the ap prentice was umndentured for two years. The respondent had alleged that one of the helpers was on approbation as an apprentice, but the boy and his father denied this. W. Cusack, a labouring helper, said that tho boy Kerr was understood _ to be on approbation for an apprenticeWilliam Kerr said that he was not indentured, and never expected to be. He went as a boy in the paint shop, and expected to learn the trade. The respondent said it was the taint of the boy's father that he was not indentured. Mr Brown said the only safety for an employer when a father did not turn up to indenture the boy was to tell him to go. The father was not bound by the award, but the employer was. The respondent was fined £5 and costs for failing to indenture, and £2 and costs for employing the supernumerary helper. J. Porter was charged by tho inspector with not having exercised preference, as required by the Stonemasons award. He stated that he was not aware of having committed any breach j of the award. Inspector Hagger read extracts from tho employment book, showing that several Union men were unemployed on the day he employed the non-Umomst. The respondent stated that he employed the man in question becauc?© of hW greater suitableness for the work he had to do. After hearing tho respondent s evidence at length, the Court found that he had no excuse for Ins action, and had made no attempt to comply with the provisions of the award. He wae ordered to pay a fine of £3 and costs. Under the Federated Tailoresses. award, Uie inspector cited the Kaiapoi Woollen Company for paying an insufficient wage to a male presser. Mr Kussell appeared for the respondents. Inspector Hagger said that a man named Tremberth had been engaged as a seam-opener, but after four monthshad been advanced to presser's work, which he had carried on since. Tremborth gave evidence. When he hocaine presser his wages were increased from 25s to 27s 6d, and then to 30s. He had done four months' work at seam-opening. Understanding from his fellow-workers that in two years he would bo a journeyman, he expected to be ranked «s a journeyman next month. Mr Rus««ll !=a ; d that it had been accepted in the factory for twenty years that a man must sorre two years b fore becoming a pivpser. The respondents claimrd "that, thouorh there was no olwM'i+p oo"t™ct to~th.pt effect. Tremberth was engaged on those terms. In ...u. 4 list, aie.vioi'v;. he could re-rive the fulf wage of £2 Iss, just as if he was in tie factory under a written contract. W. Lingy, factory manager, gave evi-

dence in support of Mr Russell's contentions. T. Wilson, .clothing manufacturer, said lie was tho last witness's predecessor as manager, holding the position for twenty years. During that time pressere graduating from seam-opening served two years, on his own arrangement. The arrang-ment was generally known and accepted. J. Berryman. prrs*er at the Kaiapoi Factory, said he had heen working there for twenty years. He corroborated the previous evidence ac to the time of service. All the pressers had served two years. Mr Russell said -"-hat the award under which the charge was laid had since been MipeTs^ded by an agreement, which had abolished the six months' period of probation undc" the award, and reinstated the two years' period which was enforced by the award, under which the factory worked when Tromberth was engaged. This demonstrated that the two years' peT'od was the proper time of service. The arrangement was consistent with honesty and reason, and was not combatel except by the award, which, after a sho iv t evidence, was superseded. His Honor said that after the award of 1905 was made the company was not justified in continuing the practice which had previously prevailed. The award was intended to supersede any existing practices. If there had bepn any binding contract between the man and the company matters would have" been d'fffirent. But th°re was no such binding contract, and thr- company or the man could have quitted th© arrangement at any time. A breach had been committed. The respondents would be fined £2 and costs. R . K. Overend was cited for not paying sufficient wages to an assistant. Mv Hunt, for the respondent, stated that a man named Williams, being a cripple, desired to learn hairdressing. and being unable to pay a lump sum, agreed to go nightly to Overend s shop for no wage. He was his own master. Inspector Hawser said the facts were as stated. Complaints were made to K i iv >. nnd ho bnc! no option but to bring the case before the Court. Tho Court recorded a breach, but imposed no penalty. The same was done in respect of AVilliams, the employee.