COURT OF ARBITRATION.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 457, 16 March 1909, Page 9

COURT OF ARBITRATION.

YESTERDAY'S PROCEEDINGS. 'ALLEGED BREACHES OP AWARDS. The initial sittings of the Court of Arbitration at Wellington for tJxo present year wero opened yesterday. His Honour Jutlgo Sim, and Mr. Brown (employers' representative) and Mr. M'Oullough •' (workers' representative) took their Beats at 10 o'clock. ' CHANGE OF VENUE GRANTED. "Application was made for the hearing of a New. Plymouth case, Fisher v. Bonfl, at .Wellington during tho current sittings. Mr. Menteath, who appeared in support of the application, said that it was difficult to tell When • the next. sittings at New Plymouth would take placo. Tho only matter involved was the taking of medical ovidcnce, which could bo heard here. The Court intimated that if tho other side were agreeable the case could be heard as was requested. EXTENSION OF PAINTERS". AWARD. . tho application of Mr. Reyling, who represented the union, the following parties were added to tho Painters' Awardßaker jUros., house agents,, Petone and Hutt: A. i. Frances, painter, Petone; F. Beetham, builder, Oharm Valley; Alex. M'Dougall, painter, Wellington; M'Callum, builder, r nf mP w°, ; r C \ and ?■ odlin ' ™rwL S »t l ui' }■' Nor S rove > buildor, Wellington; Kebblewh.te, builder, Petone Walsh, builder, Petone; Lowin and Bull buider, Petone; Schaffer and Co., Carrara Ceiling Co Wellington; Elvis Pointon, painter, Petone; : Matthews, painter Wellington; 0, W. Clayton, Wellington r v-t , C Mon, Wellington; Eggers and Co., builders, Wellington; M'Ne© and Co;, painter, and builder, Wellington.

' .INTERESTING LEGAL POINT. ,3 ,s wnraing was fixed as the time for heaang the case , of the Publio Trus'teo v. Nevis, and another.- The question at issue is. the apportionment of moneys between a had o, !],Vrl f P ' e • C . h ' ld of . a worker who ed ,'[ nm injuries received whilst at work on the wharves. A material pointis . whether an adopted child comes within fc 6 a " e / ts . ° tho Workers' Compensation' for Accidents Act. Tlie Act says that mon (7 s ; u- a l- 11 - ( ! t pass by operation of law. Mr. +W • t * 5 2," was appointed to represent the infant. On behalf of the Public Trustee Mr. Macdonald appeared.

THE GROCERS' DISPUTE. ' W'liGil the matter ■of the firocrrs' rlicn'nt/i * as , : mentioned, Mr. Carey, on behalf of l c workers, suggested that a' conference C tween the parties should be hold.' He asked that, in order that that might take place the heanng of the dispute should not take p ace, earlier than Thursday. For the employers 'Mr Grenfell said that two confer-nrm-prl I a l r . eady ker ! P'aco, but both had proved abortive. No obstacle would be nut m tho way of a settlement. It was stated V '1r that Mr ' ?• MI.V had signified his willingness to act as chairman at 110I 10 - T Court directed tho parties to h o ]j and fixed tho hearday at mSoT^k! n - nCpeSSary ' f ° r Thurs "

: DAIRY-WORKERS. ' ' WArr^ 17 'n-orkers' dispute was referred to v i t ar / w ' 10 stated that tho workers, did not propose to call evidence at Wellington but, if tho Court agreed, only to havo evidence taken' nt Wangaiiui and Palmerston North. Mr. Pryor, for the employee, said that owing to the absence of two material witnesses, he was instructed to apply tor an On the occasion of sittings when the employers wore p ™ ceec1 ' nn adjouri.riient was that H,,, if "T liC , r ?- T < le Court ort,erct ' tbat the hearing should proceed at Wanganui E"1 l a ' mc , rs . ton N°rth. If, after evilencehad been taken, the testimony of tho witadjourned. WaS tlle hearill S

THE; COMPENSATION CASES. Several_claima for compensation were mentioned.' -With regard to the case Leo v. Ship Company, Mr. Bolton stated that Dr. Izard, a material witness for the .claimant, had left for Home. Upon his application the hearing was adjourned sine die. It. was stated by Mr. Kirkcaldie that, as .claimant m the case of Johnson v. Fairburn was still in hospital, the hearing of the claim could not be taken. Mr. Lynch informed the Court' that it was probable a settlement m the case Bailey v. Union Steam bhip Company would be effected. As claimant was still in hospital the hearing was adjourned sine die. 1 It was also stated by Mr. Lynch that the case Dennehy v. Pulley had been settled. Upon the application of Mr. 0 Regan, the hearing of the case ' of Stevens v. the Wellington Gas Company was adjourned untd nest sittings. The time had not arrived, counsel added, when a settlement, might be arranged. The following cases',were : struck off the . list:—Pike y Emeny; Durrant v. Cable and Co.; Churnsido v. Pro use Bros, and. Co.; Helliwell v. Rand; and Charlton v. Collie. ALLEGED BREACH cftf PREFERENCE CLAUSE. '« A charge against Geo. Head, of Daniel Street,'of having employed a non-unionist when unionists were available was then mentioned. It was stated by Mr. Stobart, who appeared for the union, that defendant, who did not appear, had verbally admitted the ofrence. 1 . , The case was adjourned until this morning. A FOREMAN CHARGED. James Gardiner, foreman in connection with contracts being carried out by Messrs. London in Cuba Street, was charged with having committed a breach of the preference clause of the carpenters'award.' stated that he never employed ono of, the workors. Before engaging the other worker he had applied to the union for a ttorKer. bn.vi 1C W Urt tleld i th i at th< ? P°nt-i'3ctor should have been proceeded against. It therefore dismissed the information. ■ OMISSION OF A BUILDER. n f F t 't,sn ldsmit i 1 vv , as TT cl ? argod at tho of the Carpenters' Union with having failed tj ; provide sanitary conveniences for the uso or his workers in connection with a buildine which was being erected by him After ovidence had been callcd, the secre--f 0 tLat h'e would be Batisned if a breach were recorded. Tho Court adopted that course." A KNOTTY PROBLEM. A charge of having committed a breach of tho preference clause of the carpenters' award was preferred against W. J. Parsons, builder, Willis Street,, by the union. Mr. Grenfell. for defendant, stated that the caso was similar to 1 the one which had been brought against Messrs; Martin, Hurrell, and Snaddon. Defendant admitted having employed certain workers who were qualified co perform certain special work. These workers had' been specially recommended by the foreman. Reference to the register at-the tirre had shown that there' were.no unemployed unionists who were competent to do the work. _ Evidene; having been concluded, the Court intimated that it would take time to consider its decision. .

BREACH OF PAINTERS' AWARD. Hurrell, coachbuiklor, Petone, adhaving employed one Thos. Swaysland as a journeyman painter at less than the award rates. _ It wns_ stated by defendant that the worker jn question was apprenticed to him as a coachlniilder. As work was slack, he sent the lad to point his own house. Tho Court dccidcd merely to record p. breach, and order defendant to pay Court fees.

BUILDER FINED FIVE POUNDS. G.' Anger, builder, Lower Hutt, was charged by tho union with having employed two workers—A-. \V. Compton and W. J. Hpppy —at loss than the minimum wages Btipulated in the Carpenters' Award. The Court, in giving judgment, said respondent had' admitted the breaches. A tine

of £o to oover both cases would bo imposed. A breach was recorded against Hoppy (or having accepted under-rat-e wages. Compton tor a similar offence .was fined 10s.

SCOPE OF CARPENTERS' AWARD. A friendly action was brought against John M'Lc&h and Sons, contractors for tho - dock, otc.j to determine whether wharf r building came within the scope of tho Carpun--3 tors' Award. , Mr. Newton, Inspector of Awards, said that J if it wcro found that respondents had committed a breach of tho award it would not ) be asked that a penalty bo imposed. It was proposed to show that putting down piles, decking, boxing for concrete, etc., was carpentering work in terms of,the award. For tho respondents, Mr. Pryor said that [ carpenters' awards had been in force for a ' number of years. Although respondents had • been in business all tho time, no case had ' previously been brought against them. The I whole of tho work of wharf-building was outi side tho Carpenters' Award. ! The Court held that nono of tho work in question properly camo within tho scopo of . the award. UNION ACCUSED OF PERSECUTION. W. H. Bennett, builder, Quinn Street, was proceeded against by the union on a charge of having committed a breach of the preference clauso of the Carpenters' Award. • Defendant said he had no option but lo admit the breach. It was a case in which only a breach should bo recorded. During tho last sittings he was fined £3 3s. for having employed a rion-unionsst named M'Gregor. Ho employed tho worker now in question, Looney, at the same time and in connection with the samo. work as he had engaged M'Gregor. Ho did not seo why both cases had not been brought at the samo time. It looked as if it were persecution on the part of the union. Tho Court_(to the secretary of the union): AVhy was this case not brought at the last sittings? Mr. Stobart: I don't-think it was known the offence had been committed. The Court held that it would bo sufficient to record a brcach. ■ EMPLOYMENT OF NON-UNIONIST : i UPHELD. Martin, Hurrell and Snaddon were charged on tho information, of the union, with a breach of the preference clauso of tho Carpenters' Award. On behalf of defendants, it was admitted that on the date in question. May 11, they had engaged a non-unionist, but they denied that a unionist who could do the, work required to be done was available at the time. Mr. Stobart, on behalf of the union, produced a list of unionists who were out of employment at the time. Mr. Snaddon: Could any one of them do stair work ( —One, at any rate, was competent to do that class of work. . George Snaddon, a member of the defendant firm, stated that they had employed the non-unionist,, whom they had paid extra wages, because he was specially qualified to perform tho work which they required to be done. No unionist whom thoy had employed was equally competent with the worker in question on stair work. The Court held that it was not satisfied on the evidence that thero was, at the time, an unemployed unionist who was capable of performing the work required to bo done. .The application for an enforcement would therefore bo dismissed.

QUESTION OF A HOLIDAY. W. J. Lankshoar, printer, Lambton Quay, was proceeded against on a charge of having failed to pay three journeyman composltors -D. J. Casson, G, Duncan, and Nettleton—tho minimum of £3 os. for the week ending Juno ,5 last, deduction having been made for.the Prince of Wales's birthday, a holiday not specified in the Typographical Award. Mr. Findlay, for tho Inspector of Awards, said tho question at issue "was whether tho Prhicc of Wales's birthday was a holiday in, respect , of which defendants, wore not bound to pay their workers if they did not work them. John W. F. M'Dougall, secretary of the union, deposed that tho Princo of Wales's birthday was not generally observed as a holiday in any branch of the trade by newspapers and other offices. _ Evidence similar in effect was given by Benjamm J.- Finucke, employed by Messrs. Wlntcombo and "Tombs, and Thos. Jones foreman of jobbing department at tho Post." Mr. Pryor submitted that defendantsmuer, J ustlf ied in making the Uio Princo of Wales's Birthday was a cenorar public holiday. Mr. Findlay: We don't admit that. ' Joseph Frost, works'manager for defendants, stated that thn firm invariably closed its premises on tho Prince of Wales's birthday. The Court held that in order to justify an employer in making the deduction in question, it was necessary for 'him to show that the day was observed as a general holiday in the printing trade. It was clear from the evidence, that although it was a public holiday, it was not. observed in the printing trade. Respondents had, therefore, failed to • establish their right to . make the deduction. . f . . Mr. Findlay: We don't ask that a penalty be imposed. i Tho Court: Ai breach will be recorded.

DEFINITION OF COMPOSITORS' WORK,

, Tl,c Wellington Publishing Company was charged with having, employed a youth as a journeyman compositor at'less than award rates. It was alleged against Messrs. islundell Bros. • that they had employed air apprentice at. compositors' work and had failed to legally indenture ii P olnt InVO ' VC( J in each instanco was the same, it was decided to hear the cases together. , . Newton, Inspector of Awardu, stated that the facts wore not disputed.' 'The question at issue was whether "proof-pulling" was compositors' work, under the award. Upon'the conclusion of evidence in support of the charge, Mr. Pirani, who represented the defendants, asked: "Does the Court think it advisable for me to waste its time by contesting the matter?" The Court, by a majority decision, held that the work of "proof-pulling" was not necessarily compositors' work. It was competent for employers to employ other than journeymen compositors to do the work. The mere fact that the work had been done mostly by compositors in tlio past did not decide the matter. FUTURE LIABILITY FOR AN ACCIDENT.. Walter Albqrt Gwillim, of Coromandel Street, who met with an accident on August 27, claimed half wages from his employers, Alex. Campbell and Daniel Burke, to the date of recovery, and a declaration of liability in respcct of any further recurrence of incapacity if further incapacity result from the injury Mr. Treadwelf, who appeared on behalf of claimant, said that at the time of the accident a labourer was handing up timber from the ground floor to his client, who was standing on a lift. The. facts as to liability were not disputed, but it was contended bv the respondents that claimant had recovered from his injuries. Claimant gusTr. me . t '. !l fracture of the baso of the skull. His injuries might extend over a long period, and niiijht result in serious disturbances. Flic real object of the proceedings was to obtain a declaration of liability. Dr. Boyd deposed that claimant was liable i t".i r ? ni cpNtpsy. He was not yet fit to follow his usual occupation. Dr. Faulke, cross-examined, said that claimant might recover or ho might not. Ho expected him ultimately to recover. Claimant, who is now a fisherman, stated that he still suffered from sharp shooting pains m the head.

On behalf of respondents, Mr. E. B. Brown submitted that tho period of futuro liability should be limited to, say, six years. Mr. Tread well said he'thought he would be doing right in agreeing to the suggestion. The Court made a .declaration, o? liability for a period of six years from the date of the, accident. Costs, totalling £4 45., and disbursements were allowed claimant.