ARBITRATION COURT.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 535, 16 June 1909, Page 2

ARBITRATION COURT.

INTERPRETATIONS OF AWARDS. ( X WELLINGTON BUTCHERS. An interpretation of portions of the Wellington Butchers' Award, applied for by tho Inspector of Awards, has been filed by hi« Honour Mr. Justice Sim. In regard to Clause 6, which.slates': "The employment of casual boy-labour is not allowed, and employees are not permitted to , have tho assistance of boy-labour at any tinio," the following question is asked:—. "Can an employer, who employs a youth a* a permanent hand, send sucli youth to act as an assistant to an employee who is employed as a carter in charge of a hawking or order cart?" . Tho answer of the Court-is thus given;— i "An employer is entitJed to.send a . youth, employed under Clause 4 of the award, to act as an assistant to a carter V 1 in charge of a'hawking or order cart. The provisions of . Clause 6 .prohibit an j employer from employing any casual boy-. labour, arid prohibit an employee from ' gotting, on his own account, a boy, to assist him in his work. A vouth em- i ployod under Clause 4 may be put in chnrgo of nil ordijr cart (Book of Awards, 1 Vol. IX, p. 405). and it would bo absurd . to say that sucli a youth could not bo i, employed as an assistant on a cart." ">■ BUILDING TRADES LABOURERS. ■- Tho application,for an interpretation of tho Wellington Building Trades Labourers' , Awaid was also tho subject of discussion. In replying to tho question as to whether tho boroughs of Lower Hutt and Petone, and the districts of Seatoun and Day's, Bay, are to' bo as : suburbs of, Wellington for j tho purposes of the award, and, if so, aro ' ' the omploycrs in tho places mentioned abovo, . ; whoso names appear as parties - thereto, • bound by all.the provisions of the award, 1 in- . eluding that of preference, the : Coort r» ■ plied as follows:— " As employers at-Lower Hutt, Petone, , and Seatoun aro named as parties to the * iaward, it' is clear that those-places should bo treated as suburbs of Wellington! . Employers' in these places are bound, therefore, by all the provisions of the, , I award. Day's Bay should aot be treated . an a suburb for the purposos of tho / award." ' ■ . WHARF LABOURERS. '-/ Two interpretations were given under tin j, Wharf Labourers' Award. The first quos . . ! tioii was wiothor tho words in Clause 8 of tin} award—"finishing tho work which tlicy art engaged on"—means (a) "finishing tho boai ; ... 1 which thoy are cngagod on, so as to euabl< tho vessel to leave port ;" or (b) "finishing the hatch .wliioh .-they-aro engaged at," ol (c) "finishing the, particular Class of worl . upon which they may ,be engaged." ' The Court considered that tho meaning ol , < tho words "finishing the work they,, aro cn« gaged on" depended upon the facts of each particular case. The words , might mean, in . certain circumstances, fini.'ming tho boat <, which workers wer»i/engaged on,, or tho words might have to, Ixs given a more restricted meaning. It' was not desirable, even , if it. were possible, to lay down any. general ; , rule,on the subject. . . < Tlie second question was whether, in tho casa of a truck-load for ..one man, the words , in Clause .15 —"as near as practicable"—provide any limit beyond which.,tho weight, of Glcwt. mav be exceeded. v The Court held that it was not possible,to.. t fix the exact limit beyond which an em- : ; ) ployer is not entitled to go under Clauso 15. Each-case must bo considered on,iti ; own circumstances. . . - . ,