NSPECTOR OF AWARDS v. PURSER AND SONS.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXXII, Issue 12429, 31 March 1908, Page 7

NSPECTOR OF AWARDS v. PURSER AND SONS.

For employing more than specified number of, apprentices, namely, more than one apprentice to every 'three journeymen.

— — .r H. Purser pleaded not guilty. He stated that the extra boy had come down from Auckland, and on being pressed witness gave him work, taking him on a permit from the Stipendiary Magistrate. The boy had been dismissed on the day the permit ran out, and it was during the period' covered by the permit that th 6 charge was laid. The Court decided that there was no evidence to show that the youth referred to in the charge was an apprentice, he being an. under-rate workman, working under a permit. — the case was therefore dismissed. INSPECTOR OP AWARDS v. R. E. HORNBLOW (proprietor of the Mangaweka Settler). Charge of employing a female at typesetting, contrary to the provisions of the Wellington Typographical > Industrial Union of Workers' award, wherein, only two classes of labour shall be recognised, namely, journeymen and apprentices, or youths. Mr Le Crefi, of the Labour Department, conducted, the case for the Department, and stated that the case was a friendly one, to determine whether or not females could be employed at typesetting. In the Department's reading of the award youth was interperted as a male worker. Mr Le Cren asked that the matter should be adjourned to a more convenient sitting, when both sides might call full evidence and have a ruling by the Court, as the matter was important. — Mr Hornblow agreed that the question was an important one, and affected country small newei papers considerably. The women, he thought, became as efficient at the work as thu men, and in many cases proved themselves superior. Some hundreds of women would be affected were the award to exclude them. — The Court adjourned the matter for a southern sitting, when the Inspector guaranteed to have every-

thing ready, and aleso to insure Mr Horn' blow against further expense. The Court r<v,i.ined at 2.15 p.m. Mr Andrew Collins pointed out that several citations on employers at Mangaweka and Tailiapc had heen omitted from the list of eaaos, and applied to have them attached. The President *>aid the cases could be heard at Palmerston on Friday next, and fixed the hearing tor that day at 10 a.m. BREACH Oi 1 AWARD. Dickenson and Sarten, cited with having employed an apprentice without giving notice to the Labour Department, were represented by Mr Sarten, who stated that the matter was due to an oversight, wnd the apprentice had been paid more thaii the award wag^s. The firm had overlooked the matter of giving notice to the Inspector that they had the apprentice. The President said the firm should have fiven notice, and a fine of £2 was inflicted.