LABOUR IN COURT.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 483, 16 April 1909, Page 6

LABOUR IN COURT.

ENFORCEMENT OF AWARDS, EESEBVED DECISIONS. A number of enforcement of award cases i were finally settled yesterday, when Dr. A. ] M'Arthur, S.M., delivered reserved decisions. j Stokers Employed a» Labourers. ' In the case of the Inspector of Awards (Mr. Newton) v. Wellington Gas Co. (Mr. Birch), plaintiff claimed to recover .£lO from defendants as penalty for, a breach of the Building Trades' j Labourers' Award by employing as building ( trades' labourers two men who were not 'mem- ! bers of tho union at a time, when there were < mombers of tho.union willing and ready and ' qualified to do'the work. This, said his Wor- ! ship, was an award in which preference is ! given to unionists. The two men put on were , m tho employment of defendants •as stokers, . and wore members of. the Stokers' Union. It , seemed that there was somo small building to be put up in brick in- defendants' works, i and that: the two stokers were., put on as labourers, no transfer from the Stokers'. Union having been applied for. Both tho men : employed were members of another. union, but ■ still it was the duty of the defendants to have secured transfers. In face of the judgment * of the present Court, given as late as 1908, his Worship said that &o could not comply with the request of defendants to dismiss tho action as trivial. However a'nominal penalty of £2 and costs would meet the circumstances of the breach. ... . . . • ' What is "Connection with an Industry"? The case of the Inspector 'of. Awards' v. Jamieson .(Mr. Peacock) was a claim to recover the sum of ,£lO from'defendant, as a penalty for a breach of the Building Trades' Labourers' Award. On January i defendant employed one W. Morrell as a builders' labourer, Morrell not being a membor of the Building Trades' Labourers', Union, at a time when certain members of the union, equally Qualified, were ready and willing to do the work. The defence was that defendant was not a party to the award, and that, therefore, following the judgmont of Mr. Justice Chapman in the Auckland Builders' and Contractors' Labourors' Union v;. Clark, tho application for a penalty must .be dismissed. Clark's case and , the present one were not.exactly tho same, tho.difference lying in the' fact that Clark was a continuous em- - ployer, whereas the present defendant had done ' •no building between 1904 and 1908.' Defendant stated, however, that he had been continuously repairing by day work. . . ' His Worship said that there was a gap of about throe years during which defendant did no building, and during .that gap-the award was settled, but defendant was continually repairing. Repairing, the Court took it, was. being connected with tho industry to which the award applied." The.Court therefore oonsidered the judgment of Mr. Justice Chapman, already referred to, applicable to the present case. His Worship quoted two short extracts from this judgment naving reference to both sides of the question as under: "If this subsection, (ss. 3, Sec. 90, Act 1908) is,.to be read as binding a person who was not made a party to the proceedings, its operation is manifestly unfair and contrary to all our.ideas of the proper mode of forming binding. iudgmeuts. On the other hand tho language of the section aptly and without '• unfairness applies to, a person who, after the award has coma into existence, enters into business in the industry to which it,applies, who may and in fact usually does enter into cpmpetition with the original parties to . the award. It is no hardship to enact that any person who entors into business; shall be charged'with : the Juty.of ascertaining what awards are in existence aflwhng that business, ]ust as he finds himself obliged to inquirers to all Acts of Parliament and all other incidents affecting it" ■ Judgment would be for defendant with costs. : . Malster's Labourer Employed, at Painting. t>l v 4ll ?i case a e aiDst Staples and Co. (Mr. .Blair), the inspector claimed the sum of .£lO as a penalty for an alleged breach of the Wellington Painters' Award, dated June 6, 1907. The defendant, during the last two weeks in January, 1909, employed one James M'Millan as.a painter, and paid him only 10s. per week of 45 hours, instead of Is. .3d. per hour as required by the award. M'Millan was a regular baud, employed as a malteter's labourer at a constant wage of £2 10s.-a week. He was engaged oft and on during tho slack season in necessary odd jobs about tho premises, one of .these being,odd bits of painting. This was not the painting of repairs, but painting, rendered necessary by reason of the industry mwhioh M'Millan was employes.' His Worship quoted a;decision of Mr. Justice Chapman, delivered when he was president of the Conrt of Arbitration, which,made it .clear that.such,-action as that of the'de- • tendant company could not be considered as a' ' ?w ii. ■if awa ™- His Worship: considered that the defendants. had' been quite justified ' m employing M'Millan'as they had done. He with counsel for the defence'that it; the facts had constituted a breach, yet he should have considered the breach trivial and ,"■ excusable, and wonld have dismissed the action Judgment would be for the defendants, ■ with -. . -i. ; , : -, •: • ■ '_ Judgment for the defendant was also riven ' in a claim for .£2 against, M'Millan for aocept- > ing less than the rate of wages named in tho Painters Award. ■ ' •;,'.. : . Lamp-trimming on Small SteamoK. , In the action, of Jhe Wellington Seamen's Union (Mr. T. W. Young) v. tfie Wellington, ; Havelock, and Motueka Steamship Co. W Herdman), a claim for iIO as a penalty for a breach of the Arbitration Court award, plaintifis claimed that,Chas. Gr.-.nt, ordinary sea- i man on the steamer Manavoa,- was. employed performing the duties of lamp-trimmer on the ' steamer at a monthlyiwago of £A 10s. contrary to the award, which provides that, lamp- ; ™ m . e J s should te paid a monthly- wage of £7. After dealing with the position, his TVorship said Grant: was a second-class ordinary , seaman, admittedly a good one, and i the junior member of the crew. Moreover, ho was a day man, and performed his duties between 6 a.m. < and 5 p.m., during which hours'he always did ' the lamps, which work, he said,.'-. took him > about an hour. It would be absurd to class mm as a lamp-trimmor on a small steamer like i the Manaroa, and he certainly was not an A.B. i performing the additional duties, of lanipf trimming. Moreover, he worked under the day system, not ,watch and watch, and did his lamps as part of the work, just as he did the brass and other work allotted to i him. His Worship could not . see that defendants' had been guilty of a breach of the awardV Judgment would be for defendants. ;'-; ,