ARBITRATION COURT

Star (Christchurch), Issue 8984, 18 July 1907, Page 4

ARBITRATION COURT

The Arbitration Court continued its pitting in Clirietchnrch yesterday, his Honor Mr Justice Sim presiding, with | Mcr-fis-s R. Slater .and S. Brown, repre- ! fif.itiUivec? of the workers and the em- | plover. J Tim r-anterbiiry Drivers' Union brou^Vit three citations against John Bright-ling for paying insufficient j wastes. I ?,!>- Russell appeared for the respondent. Mr H-agger said that the breaches existed in the underpayment ot seventeen carters who were employed by the respondents. He contended that carters employed at a weekly Mage, and losing no time by deduction except for their own fault, were permanent hands. But as the men in question had had time deducted, they I wore not regularly employed and should have been paid as casual hands. Mr Ru'"se ] l admitted underpayment. Mr Hagger gave evidence, putting in notes taken from respondent's b^oks. showing the hours worked by the employees, the amount they were paid, what they fhould have, had if p^id by the week, and what they should have sot as casual hands paid by the I'our. Their broken time, he contended, pnt them in the casual ches. They worked from j seventy-nine to ni'iety-one hours during a fortnight, bomsc paid variously Irss than they would have received if fully paid. For single horses the irrekly pay was £2 4t?. and for two or more, £4 12s por fortnight. For casual hands the corresponding pay was Is and Is IJtd per hour. J. M'Ferron. timokeppeT for respoindent, described how the books were made up. He stated that the ! men wore engaged as permanent hands, paid on the basis of £2 6s and £2 2s per week. Deductions were made i the men did not come to work from any cause, without being instructed to stay away. Mr Hanger and Mr Russell contested at some length whether the men should be considered casual workers. The Inspector said that if the men were away from work with the sanction of the firm and to fit in with the convenience of its work, that would amount to deducting from their time and make t'"em cnsnal workers. John Peel, J. Pepper and J. E. Brown gave evidence that in wet weather they would attend in order to work, and would work if they were required. If the weather was very bad, they might not go to work at all. Sometimes when the weather was very bad, they would not go out. even if they were wanted to. It was understood among them that they should 1 not turn up if the weather was very bad. Inspector Haerser eaid that it could • not be contended that wet weather caused broken time, because the days i in question in the case were fine. He ; quoted newspaper reports, which made i special mention of fitw weather in con- [ neotion with the Exhibition. : John Brightling, carter and contractor, said that he held a contract > with the railway. His men had never > complained of not being properly paid. ; They always worked if they were want- [ ed to. If a man wished to get off, y, he would suggest a substitute. ; Mr Russell said that the men were i not casual labourers, who were defined , by the award as those who were not employed for more than a week. The I award had been altered since it wae j first drawn up, with the express pur- , pose of meeting such a case as that [ before the Court. It left it optional , for the employer to engage the men ; permanently and let them understand ' that he could not pay them for their ' off time. He submitted that there had ' been no breach. None of the carters ■ themselves had put the law in motion; ' they were all quite contented. ; Hia Honor said that the carters : were in constant employment, their wages being regulated under Clause 1 1 of the award. That entitled them to [ receive weekly wages without reduct ion, unless there was something in the ? award specially providing that the cmi plover could reduce the wages. The i definition in the award allowed him to ' ?i° fi? r f P T ct of time lo6t through "the fault of the workers; but if the J worker stayed away with the employ-

er's consent on Saturday afternoons, or with his consent did not go to work on wet days, the time wae not lost through "the men's fault. In every case, the deductions appeared to have been made, however, with the consent of the men, who seemed quite satisfied with their treatment. No P c " al *y would be imposed, but a breach would be recorded The Inspectors costs ■ would be allowed. . : H. E. White was proceeded against by the Inspector, under the Labourers' Award, lor paying insufficient wao;es. . _j The Inspector said that the award provided that hande on a derrick should receive Is Ud per hour: the man to whom the charge referred had received Is per hour. Thomas O'Brien, stone sawyer, said that he was engaged in hie proper capacity by the respondent on a building in Cathedral Square. There being no etone-saving to do, he was placed in charge of the derrick. He received Is per hour. T E J. G. Stringer, Government lnspector'of Scaffolds, stated that while O'Brien wan working the derrick he was absolutely in charge of it, and no one else could be in charge. 11. E. White said that O'Brien was engaged .as a stonemason's labourer. OrTthe building a large crane was used, and in addition there was a small cathead derrick just out of reach of the crane. A derrick required much skill. He had never been able to find a labourer competent to work one. and that was why the wages were high. Anyone could run\a crane. He always placed his foreman in charge of the derrick, or took charge himself. The derrick' was actually only used for three days, and was not in O'Brien s charge at any time. Foreman Deal waa in charge. , J. F. Deal, foreman, said that he was in charge of the derrick, controlling It. He at times worked the winch. He never left the corrick without giving enough instructions to keep the men going till lie returned. O'Brien had told the respondent when he went for his pay that he was not in charge of the derrick. His Honor 6aid that it had not bee 1 ) made out that O'Brien was in charge of the derrick. It seemed as if, having fallen out with bis employer, he had made a claim for the wages allowed by the award. The case was dismissed. The Court adjourned till 10 a.m. on the following day. |