ARBITRATION COURT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 36, 6 November 1907, Page 4

ARBITRATION COURT.

breaches of aivards. The Arbitration Court resumed its sittings yesterday' morning, Mr. Justice Sim ing, with Mr. R. Slater (Workers' representative), and Mr: S. Brown, (employers' repro? r sentutive).' , • • ' ■ < >t Mr. C. ' E.' Aldri'dge ' appeared for the 3l '' Labour Department, arid Mr. Grenfell-'roprtK- 1 sonted the-'eriiploycrs. ■ ' ' '"'j 1 In the ease of Charles Dement, who 'had *■'' been iiiicd for iiot having-given'preference to unionists, Mr. 1 Grdnfoll 1 applied for a re-' duction, as there had been a'misunderstanding on the part 'of thfi employer in reference'' r to the regulations.' No action was taken'b,v the Court. GROOM OR DRIVER ? " . An interesting point was raised in the.casa of lnspoctor of Awards v. Thomson, .Lewis, • and Co. Respondents were charged,, under clause 2 of the. award,, with .baying paid a driver £2 7s. 6tl. a week:.instead 'or £2 9s„ tho rato fixid for, driving "or, .attending to, ; two or moro 1 horses. ' ', ... 1

Mr.: Herdman, for respondent, raised tho. point that .the man in question was employed as a groom-and'not 1 as a driver. His duty was to look after, tho'horses' in .Jlr. Lewis?!-'.-stable; see that.t'liey.were properly fed arid. , cleaned, f and.c!ean the harness. Incidentally,. • he sometimes drove-,'a .tpp with, .one 'horse,. v . and Mr. Lewis hold that- -before a "convio,.,- ~ t-ion could lie' under : ..the. latter, part of.'.tho"- -.- section, it would have ..jtp .be.- proved that.' . ; the man drove two horses, and..was in -tho - i faibit of attending to /one .horsq or 'more.''.. Mr. Slater: It has been held by, the .Court in Christchurch and other* places that, if a man attends two. horses and drives-,0ne,.-he : is entitled t-o £2 9s. j -. . ,r. Mr.. Herdman: .We say .that- \yo-engaged- , him as a groom, and-not i\s ft driver,;ahd the -.-- ,5 award does not scom to cover.-the cas.O' of.a groom. ■; „ - j-,..-. ■ ' Mr. Justice Sim said that, ; according, to -v - previous decisions of tho,.Court, -the. man " in question .was entitled to .the ,higher.;>wagcs. Mr. Herdman said that-, in : that case-he --i ;.■ was riot- prepared to pursue-tho . matter,-.fuiv.' ther. . .... .. . .: ■; V.--.) A conviction was entored'iand- : .a ; -fine of . ..,-i £2 and costs -imposed. . .- ; s . .1,,

A. TECHNICALITY, i : ' ,1:!' 111 tho case'lnspector of Awa'rds 'v!' IFraiik ' Myers,' and same v. Alex. 1 Munro;,.Mr:'Alib'' Hdgo stated'that ho only required "t-Kat - 1 , v breach should ■ bo, recorded,. as it 3 Was:' giiite' -"'.-f a technical matter. 'caj^e'uii'der^ I '-'.'s ■the Bakers' : Award, and tho 'workmen!-.'•'hhdj;;''?... ■ kept tho books and; assisted in'. : house for-a time, sb^'as ! to''fajnHiariso'.;a' ; - View proprietor with the customers'.' ' •' A, breach " was recorded.Mr.' appeared for respondents. . BUILDERS' LABOURERS. Inspector , of, Awards . v., Campbell', and i;,.-.-., Burke. ~' .- '~ . . , ~'V ;;Mr...'Blair appeared for respondents'....' ; : - This. ,-was.. an action'.under t-ho r Buiiijers!- /,/ Labourers'. Award. ... . .J There, wore two charges . against 'Campbell'-' Ji and Burke; one for,having'employed'a : npn---..-;'f. unionist, arid the other.'for nqt having-paid',.- .• the minimum-rate under the award. ~ There-i: was: a charge against a labourer - named Charles Manning , for having w<?rked -at less; • than ,tho union wage, whilst in the employ, ,- . of Campbell and Burke. - , . , t. : , Tho. sc4rotary to the Wellington Builders! 5 Labourerh' Union, stated that he- had seen;- ,>■> Manning at work 011 the job doing, labourer's-,.; • work. Ho was driving a winch, ;Which-.,was" not work that : required expert, knowledge: Charles Manning;and Alexander Campbell-,;i: . : ga.vo ovidenceithat ,the ; former was employed-. as lift-boy,;,'and ;:.was ,unable .-to' ,-leave ■ tho-Ai-v 'wirieh for m<srciitfaiitm>fow seconds'.itia time.-'. - > 013. ! It. was work "that rdquired time to learn, and--' : was not ■ ordinaryi\lal)ourprs[;;,Work.« Manning 'received 355. Week, .working: or;not.-. -Ho; ,3 !was.; only about-; 20) : oventuallyrvv? be'paid .'iniich.mioret than ,hn :ordhi!iry>'build-:> "■ ■■■■ ers' .labourer... ~ .rr.-.p -><y k- ?i

' After- further evidence rconvictionsi- were entered,:* and, Campbell l and' -JBuVlie weraifinqd-: ?:'S £5 . and ••costs havihg.Hpaid-.rGWarles:V''''{! Manning and. Albert Taylor lessi. than-the--; >•, 'minimum wage, and £2 for a breach of the preference award. Taylor and Manning,.for, r , having worked 'for, less;, than" .., were fined'£T oach' and'cost's. : , " ' *~Ji. COACHWORKERS' AWARD;'' ' M'llride and Son,; coachbuilders,.. Lower-..-. iHutt, ■ wore charged with having, employed a' coach-worl;er, named,. J. W. Douuey,. and,.. ■having paid liim at the rate of 30s. "a;week., : . Douney; was: also charged with hating-failed --~v t.n notify tho. Inspector;, of. Factories .that;,'' ; x ■he 1 had been, engaged as an'apprentiefc. .' V;.: ;t •: -. --Mr. Jackson ' appeared for respondents. -. - 'The defence was , that it- had : been' under-,- ■ stood when tho-. youth - was,' engaged,,,.that .•'! -lie ,would decide, to become an apprentice. '. He took time- to tonsider,. and-.during that:-' ■ [period did work that lifted him out of the:' ~-.w labourers': category. He decided at -length: inot to become bound,-and was'then treated;//'- ' as a .labourer. " ' 1 ; 'i t - His Honour said-that an under-rate •ought to have beofT taken out, as the.-worker, km .-, 'did moro than lahourerls duties.' Ho didinot w? iregard it' as a serious pase, however. • l :A.fini3' ' , > )-"i :of £2 and costs was inflicted. . i. : A breach was recorded\in the, case of J;vs:-t-m ■R: Wclsly;-respondent being'ordered :to pay 'fees. ' '■ "WWZ* ■ The Court then adjourned until 10.30.a.m. to-day. , ' J