COURT OF ARBITRATION.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 458, 17 March 1909, Page 9

COURT OF ARBITRATION.

~ e : YESTERDAY'S PROCEEDINGS. ENFORCEMENT CASES. Tho sittings of the Court of Arbitratior wero resumed yesterday, Mr. Justico Sin and Mr. Brown (employers' representative; wid Mr. M'Cullough (workers' representative) taking tbeir seats at 10 o'clock. Inquiry was made as to whethor tho application for a.revision of the award in the flaxmilling trade could be hoard when the Court reached Palnierston North. It was docided that the matter would have to stand over until next sittings. CHARGE .AGAINST A BUILDER. A charge, was brought against Humphries Bros.,for having, it was alleged, committed ft broach of the preference clauso of tho Carpenters' Award. Mr. Newton, Inspector of Awards, called evidence to show that, at the timo tho nonunionist . was engaged, thero wero equally qualified'unionists out of employment. .Mr. CJrehfell submitted that defendants had done all that-they wero required to do. Ono ofthom had examined the employment book on tho Saturday following Good Friday. That evening the non-unionist who was engaged was told that defendants wished to see him. He started work on tho, Tuesday morning.•.' He :: would like to know if tho Court requircdj an employer to examine the employment .ip'ook 'again immediately before ' ho engaged a.nijnriinionist. His Honour/The. day of the engagement is tho critical: time. W. Thompson,' the worker in question, stated Wjat.ho was at ono time a member of a union,.. A large percentage of tho members of that union wore inferior workmen, and tho business of tho union was' carried on by a clique who "sat upon" anybody else who wished to take part jn tho management. Ho was a married man, and considered that tho contribution, ls.'4d. per week, was too largo. He noyor had any difficulty in his life in finding ■ employment. ' Geo. Humphries, one of tho defendants, said fhat Thompson was highly recommenclec to his ; firm. He was engaged for special work .'and received wages in excess of tho minimum.. . . Tho Court said it would take time to coneider the matter. . • 'THE UNION HAD BEEN HARD ON Geo,_ Head, builder, Wellington, . was ■ charged with having employed a non-unionist when unionists were available. ' Defendant forwarded a letter, in which he admitted the offence. He considered that tho union had been very hard on him. It was the first house that he had erected on nis own account. Ho had never received notice Lhat tho preference clauso was going to be enforced. Tim worker had 'joined tho unions day or two afterwards. ■ His Honour: We understand that for a long time- the prefarenco clause was not put into operation becsuso no men'were out of c 3 r \ Br iT n /L he era P lo y e '-s' representative) ?h!P?i tr° * *Pn»fnt*tive of tho union that tho time of .tho Court would be saved it informations were not laid against em-E-SL r Cs -* non - u . n ' o n>s.ts did not become . numbers of union within threo days aiter they received notice from-the union XS" Tu'k* Said 'i likp omployers respect. Half the employers did not join the Employers' Assertions, but, as soon as they Kites Wth 6 COStS ° f tho ™°n au C d INTERPRETATION SOUGHT. of tho urates of wages for country work -was the -'charge'" preferred WWohn JJicbll, -plumber, Wellfngton Mr, Newton;-Inspcctor-of 'Awards San interpretation was desired of the c ause reMing- to. country work. It was provided that employers; should either supply board or lodgings, .or give their workers 1 3 ; per day extra and provide sleeping acconZdation for them whilst thoy were on country work The defendant held that if the workers were rro»iv O nT n P J ° f J 1 they must rcceivo board and lodging. On'the other I had - / sserted that it «-ould bo he paid them the extra wages ■and provided them with sleeping accommodaMγ. Grenfoll, for the defendant, submitted that town employers would be unduly and Tvnrr^ hamhcapped in , re S ard t0 c °«ntry and lodg ngs for their workers, whilst counu^lßr m t? ICO 'f S T W fu - Ifil tbeir obligations under the clause by paying their workers 1 3 . The. Cotirt held that if workers were sent •thJTrtST ™V,° m the of Wellington ; p? 8 * bo l A rovided with suit^ board and lodging.. On the-other hand, if the workers were sent from any other place outside the city employers had the option of providiEy suitable board and lodging or riavlUg Is.;a day and providing suitable sleeping accommodation. As the case had been jJEAR MEAT COMPANY SUED. *2H.F ear M( j afc Comply were-proceeded Dgamfet on a charge of having employed at vanoM times certain labourers upon the construction of buddings, when such workers l°lt not ,"J™bors of tho Building Trades labourers' Union and members of the union wore available. 16 defendants, siib.mitted(l)that tho firm was not a party to the ■niprd, and (2) that the operation of tho award was restricted to tho city and suburbs. teW«l tl°f ??' Ins P° ctor ° f conthat the company wero a party; thev tZ ? amcd ° n Clau >* 17, which exempted them from the operation of the award in reH«ct of repairs and email buildings. Mr. Grenfcll stated that the company had to provide work for its permanent hands in tSsiS s ys^'^ .S^Vbia^irs exemption from the operations'of he prefer weteffi^^^'tfTS the time tho award wra made \VhZ ■? dispute was brought befo™ the tf Oonc.lmt.pn, for some reason or other the name o tho company w.-s struck offtho list of .employers cited, and whon the oWn came'.before the Court application wa S P n O t made to again have them added. The nro Bent cass must be dismissed. ' Pe "