INDUSTRIAL CASES.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 793, 16 April 1910, Page 14

INDUSTRIAL CASES.

CARPENTERS AT WAINUI DAM. (Before Mr. W. R. Haselden, S.M.) The Labour Dopartment took proceedings yesterday against Martin, Hurrell, and Snaddon, contractors for the 'erection of Solomon's Knob! dam at Waiiiui-o-mata reservoir, charging them with having committed'a breach of the Carpenters' and Joiners' Award.; It was alleged that the contractors had ten carpenters on country work, without paying travelling expenses incurred by the men in going to and coming from their work. Mr. Newton appeared for the Labour Department, and Mr. Grcnfell for the contractors.

Mr. Newton pointed out that the firm had advertised. for workmen to' apply at Quiri Street, Wellington. . The magistrate said that he did not desire to near evidence. He was prepared to give his decision,. and if his, opinion was not considered to be the correct one, an appeal might bo taken before the Arbitration Court.

Mr. Grenfell asked that the evidence on behalf of the contractors should bo submitted to tho Court.. .

"Very well," said Mr.-Haselden. "I won't say what I.want, and what -, I don't want. That is the worst of not having counsel. It is , like two men being sent out with a bucket of stuff .to put down 'as required.' Inasmuch as they don't know what is required, they put the whole lot down, and return with the bucket empty." Mr. Newton thereupon expressed his intention to call no evidence. •

Hurrell, a member of the firm, stated in evidence that the firm had only a yard in Wellington used for storage purposes. They had not employed men m Wellington since ' April last year. Men were engaged, paid, and discharged at Wainui, where tho firm had a carpenters' shop. ' : . . In reply to the magistrate, the witness stated that his partners and ho lived at Wainui frony.Mohday morning till Friday night, thoir wives and families being in Wellington: ■' ■ "I.am not saying that is,an offence," explained.Mr. flaselden,. ; "but it seems to me that you have to walk warily to avoid penalties nowadays.". .y- ■ • • In deciding the pasV against'the firm, the magistrate said that they. did not appear to have a workshop either at Quin Street or at Wainm. Place of residence then became the deciding factor. Ho held that the contractors were bound to pay tho. travelling expenses of the workmen, and imposed a fine of 205., with costs. NON-UNIONIST. GROCER. The Wairarapa Farmers' Co-operative Association, Ltd., we're' charged with having committed a breach of the Grocers' Award. Mr. Newton appeared for the Labour Department, and Mr.'Grenfell for the firm. Mr. Grenfell eaid that the case concerned the re-employment of a former assistant. '.. V' '■' '.' " " Mr. /Haselden; But he was a nonunionist.. This is; a, very simple matter. ■ '.•'.•.. . ■'.'■. ;.Mr. Grenfell: It: does not'matter.- ' ■Mr. Haselden: How can'you justify Wit- .'■■ ■ . ■■.- .;.' Mr. Grenfell: The question involved is as to the man's qualification. '■' Mr. Haselden: , This man is a nonunionist. The employer might say, "He is a very much better man than any other I, know," but why does he not join the union ? : The whole thing can be set at nought, if this ■ kind of fence can be set up. '. Mr. Newton said that the" firm. had employed the assistant without consulting the employment-book, on which there were the names of several unionists seeking employment; Moreover, the firm had not carried out the requirements of the clause which said that they must give 24 hours' notice to the Department. ~' ■

Mr. Grenfell remarked that the man, when previously in the service of the W.F.C.A., ,had belonged to the union, and the firm re-engaged him, believing that he was still a unionist.

\The magistrate, in deciding the. case, said that the whole effect of the awaid would be destroyed if it were held that an employer might be allowed to say, "Yes, I admit that I employed a non-unionist, but I considered that he was the most competent man."- He did not think this question had been ■brought under the notice of the Arbitration Court, and he waa called upon to decide something that was really not in the award. There would be a conviction, and a fine.of £2, with costs. "I shall be very glad if there is an appeal," added Mr. Haselden. ' A BUILDER'S LABOURER. William Adams, of Devon Street, was charged with having employed S. S. Austin, aged 20, at building-labourer's work, paying him 205., instead of 30s. per week. I Sir. Devirie, on defendant's behalf, admitted a technical breach, the young man having been employed merely to carry timber. A fine of 20s. was imposed. ' . FARE TO KAIWARRA. J. J; Easson and Company, contractors, of Kilbirniej were charged with a breach of the Oarpentera , and Joiners' Award in failing to pay George Brown, for time occupied in travelling. Mr. Easson said that he was in business with his brother, and Brown came seeking employment. He told Brown that he was having a house built at Kaiwarra (as a private speculation, not for tho ■ company) and if he went to the. foreman on-tho job he might be taken on. The foreman employed- him, and Mr. Easson urged that the "place of business," within tho moaning of the award, was at Kaiwarra.' : The Court fined the company 20s.' OTHER CASES. Odlin and Company, Ltd., wero charged with employing Edward Barbour, an apprentice, at Waikanae, on country work, for ten days'without providing him with free board. Mr. Foil appeared-for. the company, and said that a sum of 20s. had been deducted from tho apprentice's wages by the clerk at Waikanae.. Subsequently, it was paid on representations being made. A fine of 20s. and costs was imposed. William Entieott (or M'Donald) for misleading his employer as to his age, and accepting less than the standard wage, was fined 205. ; He had accepted £1 10s. per week, whereas he should have been paid at the rate of £3 11s.