TAILORS' AWARD.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 149, 18 March 1908, Page 4

TAILORS' AWARD.

ALTERATIONS TO A SUIT.

C. (Smith, Clubs' Street, was. charged 'with •liaving token an, order, from; 6; Svenson for 'a suit, and having had ; it 1 made up in a maimer contrary to the bespoke work clause. Mr. Lp Creii: stated..thaf; the'\Union. had sent men to got.suits made to see if the various firms wore complying with the award. .As a. reward, they .received which thoy ordered at' tlio "espouse"of 'tho Union. It. might,■•not seemtlie p/pper.way;to secure evidence, and the; Department' wished to know whether it should take up cases where tho evidence had been secured in that way. ' ;'His i.Honour Similar:"-..steps "-havQ",; been takonjiniotlier cases to see: whether .'the law. ,is ; boiiig. obeyed. ' Mr. Lovvey, ;on behalf; of respondents, said an interpretation was, required as to whether - a customer a completed -, ; piit havo; alterations: mad«, and" whether 'such' alterations constituted' a'-''try-on." He submitted that once a suit was completed, • alterations;wore not in the'nature of a ".try ' n question was not tailor-' made, and no "try r on" had taken place. , ; Irustav Svenson'gave-'evidoncb : as to being I measured for the suit and returning it fdr I an. alteration. "

I •fH:9°S^ I W . brcacli, had; been i established; .fciiat^tho-ysuit - in'•■'question was bespoke work-', withiii''olausa"> 7.:, t' An-. n order' was ..given: for : a-.tailor-made stiit: .tho .man, •; aI1(J tho 'Court,-was : not!'satisfied that it,was mado, clear, to- thoi purchaser nl? • i not iv°- : £ e^ ' a tailor-made' suit.'. lhe,,Court,.also thought fitted on. according ;tp; ; a- decision,rinV'-'a" casV ogainst _ the •-same respondent last"-year. ' It was satisfied that the ; sui.t ..was sent back for % WW .J/ taj»: afeed, that it was altered, and that the alteration constituted 'posedT; ; -^ s ;the.;.Coiirt ! i'in view of the fact that ho decision had previously heen giveu on the question, it could not simply record -a/bredeh; C :Vi:. ; - . J* 1 ?, #»}W: Wev have? takeii' feverytiiink consideration, -'arid must refuse the ap*;.G. R- Rogers, Courtenay .Place, was proceeded , against for having'failed to-pay ail apprentice'.his, wages', weekly.''' Mr. 'J. M Grath, pn : behalf of.;.tho respondent; stated that no broach of .the award had been cornnutted, .inasmuch as;, the award did not; pro-; v , ~, the manner in which apprentices be paid, llie Department admitted that tho e amount duo had been paid. T1 ?°;.9. 0u 4 upheld Mr. M'Grath's contentkni, aiid dismissed the information. lii so doiric His Honour; pointed'out that the method' ol payment of-. wages was provided "for 1 W btatute. -tailors' -award provided on]v for tho method of payment to journeyman and not .to apprentices, t

TYPOGRAPHICAL' AAVARD Tho "Now Zealand .Times" Company. Ltd were ' charged with having employed tlireo feeders at making ready on jobs. Mr. Grontell stated that respondents admitted a technical breaoh of the award. 'Since 'tho matter'was brought'under theifnotioo respondents had advanced two of'the employees -in .question, to the position, of machinists, and tho othor had been apprenticed;' These alterations had been made within .reasonable fomo of tho laying of the complaint. . The Court held that tho breaches woro not merely technical breaches.; It was tho dutv of respondents .to-.see.'.that the provisions • f tho award, woro carried out. .Tlioy. would- be lined ,t3, and _ordered to pay witnesses' expenses and other costs.

_.. Another, charge against the same rospundents wjjs withdrawn. ..

: C. M. Banks and Company denied,bavins employed'a feeder at "making ready'" 'Mr" Benjamin, .factory manager for'tho :respondents; stated-: that-prior to the visit .of: the Inspector tho employee was warned not to "palce ready. ' Rebutting ovidonco was given on behalf of the complainants; The Covirt held that the employee in question waß employed • not occasionally, but larly, at ''making ready." It-was.satisfied, however, that the breach was not committed with tho anproval ■of • the principals. A line of £5. would bo imposed. • •

.::PLASTERERS' AWARD. , C. T. v Emeny, contractor, was charged with having committed a breach of the preference clause of the plasterers' award. Tho

Court stated that, as it had not been prove* that respondent!?, version i was untrue, thtr ■information must ;.he,-dismissed. FEDERATED SEAMEN'S AWARD. The Union Steam Ship Company, Ltd., woro 'charged 'with' -having failed to 7'pay overtime to certain employees, or in lieu thereof, to give them time off. j ■ Mr. W. L. Jones appeared on behalf; of the Union, and Mr. J. IY Kir.by for i tho ,Company. --V i'i _ Mr/! Jones, stated that Respondents; had froiti' time to., time', committed : breaches';, of the',clause in : question/' •'TKero were; ;:26 breaches in one case; 14 in the other,-•ind one in the third. Mr. the breach ;an . oversight on- the part of-the respondents. . ;; .1

Tile Court held 'that the breach 'was ,;an oversight,- and. suggested - that Mr. Jonoa should arrango with Mr i 'Kirby for respondents to pay to tho Union expenses incurred by it, after which the charges should,: ba withdrawn. This course was adopted.

" GENERAL LABOURERS' AWARD. 5 ., H. D. Crawford was charged with having committed a breach of the preference clausa of this award. A fine of £3, with costs.; was imposed. .i.v 1 - Johii 'Lamb ; . was I proceeded against L for having comniitted a breach :ofv,thc prefcreiica clause,. Mr., Le Cren. stated that a penalty was not sought in this case.' A'breach of the award was recorded. The same respondent was charged :witli having employed a labourer at laying bracks. Mr. Le Cren submitted that, employers should permitted' '.to- employ as; a journeyman a worker. who had- not- been-'Ap-prenticed to the trade. The Court held 'that the Inspector's proposition was qui to'unthinkable. So ]ong as employers paid' ;an employee tho wages prescribed it did; not matter whether the employee was competent or not. Tho matter was one entirely; for the employer, If a .butcher chose, to .em'pluy a baker to do, butcher's' work,' aiid *.pald'liini the award rat-es, no exception could be laiken. No breach had' been established, and the case would be dismissed.

' " '• BUTCHERS' UNION.'. -- The-• Gear 'Meat. Ereserying-and; Freezinj I Company of. New Zealand denied: having employed more boys in their Taratiaki Street shops than the proportions allowed! by th® award. ••• The Court held that an employer, in calculating thb number of apprentices which ho might employ oould take into- account all the adult porkers in all bis'slums. No breach had been committed, and tne caso would bo dismissed. . y : ;i .... TIMBER. YARDS' AND SAWMILLS' AWARD.; .. w -■.' .The Stew.arli Timber, Glass; and Hardware iCompanv were; charged'ivith having • employed several: workmen'- as yardman .'and paid ■thonj at a rato.less tljan that prescribed-by ithe Mr.' ;'jjd:-,Creu stated .that the point" iriyolved was'whether the; employees were yardmen or yard labourers: £ho. further hearing of. tJ?o case was adjourned until .this-afternoon. \ VCARPENTERS' AND JOINERS' iiwARD. The Evans -Bay Timber Company ;was pro-ceeded''against-on a charge of having employed an unapprcnticed youthji I:Charles Corapton, member of the respondent • firm, stated that as the youth in question was ;hia. son . ho did- not-'consider iV necessary to ■ apprentice him?' The Court imposed a fine ;of £3, with costs. ;, ,' '';U : Mr. Compton: What I would-like; to know is, whether a father is compelledi'to; apprentice ;his son? .. .. ; jj His Honour: If he does not care to do .that/-he can. make,;:him..ja member' of the firm.;v '•■. ViA ■ - .!i ,j" ~ Respondent : I think that is what I shall have to do. v .• j Tho Court then adjourned until 10.30 thf morning. ; - •, ?