ARBITRATION COURT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 35, 5 November 1907, Page 6

ARBITRATION COURT.

BREACHES OF AWARDS. The Court dealt with a largo number o[ applications for enforcement of the pror. visions of various awards yesterday mornting. His Honour Mr. Justice Sim, and Messrs. R. Slater (workers' representative), and S. Brown (employers' representative) took their seats at 10.30 o'clock.. Mr. C. E. Aldridge appeared on behalf .of tlio Labour Department.

ILLEGAL COMMENT. NEWSPAPER PROPRIETOR FINED. Arthur James Burrows, printer, publisher, and manager of the "Taihapo Post," was charged with haying published, under the heading of " Editorial Notes," an article calculated to prejudicially affect an industrial dispute between the Wellington Timber Yards and Sawmill Industrial Union of Workers and James Adamson and other employers then before the Conciliation Board sitting at Palmerston North and elsewhere in tho Wellington Industrial District, contrary to section 113 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and contrary to the form of the statute made and. provided. - * • The text of the section in question is as follows: —" If any person prints or publishes anything calculated to obstruct or in any ■way ( interfere with or prejudicially affect any matter before the Board or tho Court; he shall for every such offonce.be liable to a fine not exceeding £50." > Mr. J. L. Stout, who appeared for the Labour Department, stated that the proceedings had been taken in order that newspaper proprietors might know.that matters under consideration by' the Conciliation Board or the Arbitration Court were sub judice. The employers' case was put very strongly in tho article, which was likely to have a .prejudicial effect. Mr. W. Q. Beere, who represented the defendant, said that tho Act had been subjected to a good deal of criticism.. His Honour pointed out that general criticism of the Act was ono thing and discussion on the merits of a case before the Conciliation Board or the Arbitration Court another: Mr. Beero contended that there was a , distinction between a discussion on a question before the Board and one before,the Court. His Honour held that no distinction could be drawn. Mr. Beere then submitted that there was nothing in the article in question which would tend to influence the Board. His Honour replied that discussion of any kind might have a prejudicial effect. Mr. Stout remarked that the Board was more likely to be influenced by newspaper criticism than the Court. • Mr. Beero asked that only a nominal penalty should be imposed, seeing it was the first occasion on which proceedings-had been taken in respect "of newspaper comments on a matter before the Board. The Court held that the offence had been committed unwittingly, 'and that, as the proceedings had been instituted simply as , a warning to newspaper proprietors, a fine of £1, with £2 2s. costs, would meet the case.

COOKS' AND WAITERS' RECOMMENDATION. ". • CASES ADJOURNED. "■' Mr. Myers asked that all. the cases in : which breaches of the above recommendation are alleged might-be adjourned until''Wednesday, pending the decision of, the Supreme Court in two cases on appeal'under ."The Shops and Offices Act."' Counsel pointed out that tho recommendation in question fixed the minimum wage on the basis of a week of 65 hours, while the Act providedfor a week of 52 hours. It might happen that this decision would have the effect of invalidating the recommendation. His Honour thought the best thing to do would bo for representatives of the Union and of the employers to meet and agree to drop tho recommendation and for all employers to be cited in connection with a dispute which is now before the Court between the Union and. certain employers who are not bound , by the recommendation. ■ ■ Mr. Aldridge was of opinion that the validity of; the recommendation would not be affected by' the decision' of the Supreme Court in the cases now before it'. What the Department wanted to know was whether employers in this branch of trade were working uiider the' terms of the recommendation or under the Shops and ,Oflices Act. His Honour adjourned the cases .until Wednesday. , ' ■ , ' ■ The undefended oases were taken first.

UNDEFENDED. CASES.

GROCERS' AWARD. W. E. Laney, Petone, was ordered to pay Court fees for having engaged a non-unionist when there wore competent members of {he Onion available. It was explained on behalf of defendant that he did not know it was necessary that the man, who was a member of the Drivers' Union, required to belong to the Grocers' Assistants' Union. Timothy Begg, for having employed an. assistant at under-ratc wages,,was lined £5 and costs. . Hobort Williamson, of Kent Terrace, who ■had paid undor-rate wages to a female assistant was fined £5 and costs. : . A. W. lioden, i'otonp, charged with having employed a non-unionist when there were members of the Grocers' Union of Workers available, was fined £2 and costs. H. (jl. Booker, Wellington, who admitted having paid a female assistant undcr-rate wages, was.lined £5 and costs. W. J. Wcstwood, charged with having failed to pay the minimum wage to a female assistant, was lined £5 and costs. i B. W. Wade, Aro Street, for a similar offence, was fined £2 and costs. The Inspector stated that the girl in question had been employed at domestic duties part of her tune. ■ ' - ■ DRiVERS' AWARD. The D.I.C. were fined £5 and costs for having paid an employeo named Charles Johnston less than tho wages fixed by tho Drivers' Award, and £2 for having engaged Johnston, who is a non-unionist, , when there wore competent members of tho Union available. The Court decided simply to record a breach in the case.against Johnston for having accepted less wages than lie was entitled to, as he was a recent arrival from Sydney and was unacquainted with the provisions of tho award. Mr. Levy, who acted for the IXJ.C., saitl his clients had thought that a permit wliich had been obtained in respect of tho previous driver would hold good. The Wellington Fishermen's.Co., for having engaged a non-unionist driver when competent members of tlie Union were available, were lined £1. and costs. 1 The Inspco- • tor pointed out that the defendants, who are foreigners, had only recently started 'hiiJinoss in Wellington, and were, not acquainted with the provisions of the awards Thomson, Lewis and Co., aerated water manufacturers, for having failed to pay the minimum wage to a driver, wore' fined £2 and costs. Tho Inspector informed the Court that the man was employed to drive one horse, wnd had attended to five others in the stable.

BUILDERS' LABOURERS' AWARD. Campbell and Burke, Adelaide Road, Newtown, were fined £5 and costs for having failed to pay two assistants tho minimum wage fixed by tho award, and £2 for a breach of tho preference- clause in the same award. Albert Taylor and Charles Mannies, the assistants who accepted under-rato wages, wore fined £1 each with costs.' 11. A. Wakelin, Wellington, was ordered to pay Court costs for a breach of tho preference clause in this award. The Inspector stated that the employee in question was taken on by tho foreman during the illness of the employer, and contrary to his wishes. Charles Dement, of Wellington j.for having failed to give pn-forenco f» unionist, was fined £5 on ono charge, and on another the breach was simply recorded. E. and A. Roynell, Wellington, who admitted having failed to give preference to unionists, wore fined £2 and costs. FURNITURE TRADES AWARD. / ( Homy Eiclder, Manners Street, was fined £5 and costs for having paid a machinist loss than the minimum wage fixed by this award. Mollicr, the employee in question, was fined £1 and costs for having accepted ■under-rato wages. IS. Diedrich and Sou, Wellington, were

filled £2 nnd costs for having failed to indenture, nn apprentice. Mr. Levy appeared on behalf of defendant."' TAILOKESSES' AWARD. Wm. Marwick, Wellington, charged with having failed to pay a female assistant the , minimum wage fixed by the award, was lined £1 and costs. On a similar charge a breach was recorded. Mr. A. L. Herdman, who' appeared for defendant, admitted that a breach had been committed, and asked the Court to impose only ..a luminal penalty, in view of the fact that tlie defendant wa3 a recent arrival in Wellington, and had been misled by the assistants in question as to the wages they should receive. John Cotton, of Pototioj ■ for having employed a greater proportion of apprentices than was allowed by the award, was fined' £5 and costs. CARPENTERS' '■ AWAED. - Mawson and McArthur, Island Bay, were fined £5 and costs for having failed to inJ denture an, apprentice .is provided by the award, and £1 and costs" for having failed to pay the minimum wages to the assistant ■ in question. H. Crump, Wellington,. was fined £5 and costs for having failed to indenture an apprentice. ','■■■ BUTCHERS' AWARD. A. S. Colyer, Kilbirnie, was fined £2 and costs for a breach of the preference clause. W. E. Lntz, Wellington, charged with having employed an assistant on Good Friday, a holiday fixed by the award, was fined' £2 and costs. BAKERS' AWARD. ' A., L. Williams, Ro'na Bay, who pleaded guilty .to having employed an employee at. less than the wages fixed by the award, was fined £5 and costs, and A. Honshaw, the omployoe in question, was fined £1 for having accepted less wages than ho was entitled tO. . ■ ■■■,!... COOKS' AND WAITERS' RECOMMENDATION. , '■'■• A. Nannestead, proprietor of the Sbam> rock Hotel, who admitted having engaged a non-unionist cook when there wore corn-' petent members of the Cooks' and Waiters' Onion available, was fined £2. arid costs. ]■■ PLASTERERS' AWARD. . J. and A. Wilson, Cambridge Terrace, charged with a breach of tho preference, clause in this award, were "fined £2 and , costs. The Inspector stated that the.offence ' had been committed unwittingly. ■ - .- ■ ■ ' In the afternoon, Mr. Herdman applied for a re-hearing of the case against Messrs. Thomson, Lewis and Co., iciated water m'auufac--tiirers,'who ■ had instructed him that they■ were iriadvortently absent when the case was called on. The-Court intimated that it would re-hear the case this morning. ' ■ -Mr.. Dunn asked for an adjournment of the case'against Begg Bros;, who, it:is alleged, failed to- pay two assistants the. wage fixed by the grocers' award. The ground for the application.was the absence of his clients, on urgent business,tin Christ- , church'. The Court adjourned the hearing: of the case until the next sittings. . ..;■ . Application for the rehearing of the case against -Messrs. Campbell and Burke was made by Mr. Blair, who stated that it had been treated as undefended, whereas he had, in the morning, intimated to the • secretary of the Union that it would be defended. The Court decided to. rc-heut , the case this'morning. ' ' ' ' '

v DEPENDED CASES.

The following defended cases' were then taken:— BUILDERS' LABOURERS' AWARD. Howie and , Matthews, contractors, Welling-, ton, were charged'with a breach of the preference clause in this award. Mr. Aldridge said that the services of competent unionists were available when the defendants engaged a non-unionist named A. Burrell. Defendants could have got-a suitable man in five minutes or so if they had gone to the telephone. ■"Mr.- S. Brown (a member, of the Court): That - Is-'all "tommy-rot.'' ..Men- don'.t stand about the office waiting for employment. Mr. Grenfell (the employers f representative) pointed out that a man was required in a hurry: Asa rule, men supplied by. the Union were incompetent. ' ' : ' /: ■' His Honour: We cant go into that question. The onus is on tlie defendants to prove that the services-of a suitable unionist were available at the time. .

F. J. Lyons, secretary of the Union, gave evidence that no. concrete work was required to bo dono (as had; been alleged by' the defendants), and that Burrell was engaged carrying bricks. The foreman had told him that he was not responsible for this employment of the man. He "could always obtain the.services of competent men within twenty minutes, or thereabouts. . _ , The case was adjourned until to-day to enable the-defendants to produce evidence.showing that the man was employed to do concrete work. ' ■'■','.'■' ■ ,•■'•'. King and Mitchell, contractors, \Vellington, were charged with having employed a nonunionist named Frederick Banger when the services of competent members of the Union were 'available. Mr. Aldridge said that : Ranger was a recent arrival in Wellington,' and that defendants had engaged him without taking steps to ascertain whether the Union could supply a man. They,-,could ; have,made .the necessary inquiry by walking across, the street. - . ■ ' '■'■■. : Mr. Grenfcll said that a man was required urgently, at the time. : " The Court inflicted a fine.of £2, with costs. Fullford and'Sriiith were alsochargedwith a similar offence,.but the case was dismissed, the' Gourt holding that the non-unionist engaged was more' competent than , tlie unionists out of employment. ';■

PLASTERERS' AWARD. ( ].'■. Fullford and Smith, contractors, Welling, ton, wore charged witjh having employed one Frank Carroll at 6s. per: day instead: of at Bs,, the-rate-'stated 1 on .a permit issued to Mr. Blair, for the defendants, said that his clients had agreed : with:Carroll's-father to pay the young man 6s. per day, provided he got a permit to work at that rate; They had not examined the permit, which'; fixed the rate at Bs. per day. _ .. The employee in question deposed that he understood ho would receive Bs. per daj\ He was now carding 12s. per day. . • ~ ■ _ Defendants were fined £2 and costs, and a breach was recorded against Carroll tor having accepted less wages than were fixed by .the permit. ' ■ ■'■' '; ■

TAILORS'AWARD. . M. Cohen, Manners Street, was 'charged with' distributing work uiidcr the team Mr. Herdman, who'appeared for defendant, submitted that his client carried tin the business of dressmaking', and,' consequently, did not come within the scope of tho award. ■■•:,' Defendant gave evidence to the effect that garments for gontlemou\wero not made in his establishment.. . : ' Mr. Aldridge submitted that all, taiiofs, whothor they were employed iir making garments for ladies or for gentlemen, came under the award. P. L. Muir, secretary of tho Tailors Union, cave evidence in support. Crossoxnriiincd. by Mr. ITerdinan, he stated thai; in his opinion, if defendant called himself a dressmaker, he would not como under tho award. As far as he was aware, defendant did not manufacture garments for ladies. The Court intimated that' it would take time to consider its judgment.

This morning other defended cases will be taken. . .'

The Institute of Marine Engineers yesterday decided to support the candidature of Mr. It. Slater as the workers' representative on the Aribitration Court. . . •',-.•■ The United Boilermakers and Iron Shipbuilders' Union of Otago has unanimously resolved to . support Mr. It.. Slater as tho workers' representative, on the Arbitration Court. The Union, in reply to Mr. M'Cnlloueh's application for support, informed him that Mr. Slatoi- had always helped the Union with his sound advico, and that the man was yet unborn who would please all better than Mr. Slater had done. .■„.■' , . Dunodin, November 4. Tho Bakers' Union nominates Mr. M'CulHurli and Mr.- Young for the Arbitration Court vacancies