ARBITRATION COURT.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18480, 7 September 1925, Page 5

ARBITRATION COURT.

LINESMEN'S NEW AWARD. Tho new award for tho Chxistchurch and Timaru linesmen and linesmen's assistants orders that waged shall be, for linesmen, not lees than 2s ljd jer hour, linesmen's assistants not 1033 than Is lid per hour. "Wages are to be paid weekly. A forty-four hour week is provided. Tho award comes into force on September 14th, 1925, and continues until September 24th, 1927. The Judge's memorandum is: "The Court hoa settled the clauses relating to wages and term of the award. In regard to a. claim by the Union that no linesman should be required to work on a live wire unless an assistant was provided, iha Court is satisfied that the granting of such a claim would lead to difficulties. of the emergency work performed by linesmen is of a simple nature, and no appreciable risk is involved. The delays that would result fjom prohibiting a linesman from undertaking such jobs single-handed would cause unnecessary inconvenience. The Court, however, approves the principle that if an emergency job presents any appreciable element of danger or special difficulty, the linesman should have an absolutely unfettered discretion to decide whether he should wait for an assistant before undertaking the work. The employers' reljTesentatives were willing to accept this principle, and the Court considers that the position will be sufficiently met by this memorandum." TYPOGRAPHERS' AWARD. Mr Justice Frazer has given an interpretation of clause S (i; of Part 11. of the Northern, Taranaki, Wellington, Marlborough, Jselson, Westland, Canterbury, Otago and Southland Typographers' Awai\l of .November 7th, 19-22. His Honour was asked to answer the quMtion: "Would an eqi plover who is personally incapable of trsnning an apprentice, and has no journeymen employed, commit a breach of the award by employing one apprentice?" The Court's memorandum is: "Clause 8 must be read as a whole. Sub-clause (i) •certainly- allows' one apprentice (for the house, but the tub-clause cannot be read by itself it the result of so doing is to nullify another sub-clause. Sub-clauee (a) obliges, an employer to teach his apprentice the trade, and this cannot be done if the employer is not a tradesman and does not employ a journeyman. The only reasonable' interpretation to be placed on the two subclauses is that which gives effect to both; vi;., that the right to employ one apprentice for the house is dependent on the employer being able, personally or by a journeyman, to teach him tho trade The answer to the (question submitted, therefore, is that (tn employer cannot, in the circumstances set out, be permitted to employ an apprentice."