LABOUR DEPARTMENT

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 840, 11 June 1910, Page 3

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

■ > STRONG COMPLAINT BY A UNION. | : ! AN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION, j A few weeks ago (it will be romem- I bored) the Furniture Workers' Trades j Union complained to the Hon. J. A. Millar (Minister for Labour) that the | Labour Department seemed unwilling t in some instances to bring charges for j alleged breaches of awards. Mr. Mor- j iarty, secretary of tho union, pointed j out to tho Minister that convictions j had been secured by his union in four j cases which lie alleged the Department had refused to take. It was also stated by Mr. Moriarty that owing to the way in which Jiis union had been treated by tho Department it did not intend to report any further alleged breaches of awards to the Department. The Department has now prepared reports on each of tho four cases in question as follow:— (1.) W. l'egden, Palmerston North. On investigation by the local inspector it was found that this employer had been paying wages fortnightly instead of weekly as per award. It was found, at the time of the inspector'.s visit, on or about February 17, 1909, that for the two weeks previous to the- visit Mr. Pegden had paid his hands weekly. As this was Mr. Pegden's first offence, and as tho matter had been adjusted prior to the inquiry, the Department did not deem it necessary to proceed against him. Mr. Moriarty asked the Department to make this a test case and have a conviction recorded against this man, in order to show the rest of tho employers that they must pay weekly. At that time tho Department, had no information before it that other employers were failing to carry out the terms of the award in this respect. The only other instance was that of a firm which had not been made a party to the _ award, although it had been in business about four years. (2.) For alleged' breach of the preference clause by the D.I.C. In this case a man who had been in the firm's service for some years was asked during tho last week in January, 1909, to stand down for a day or two on account of slackness of work. During two of the four and a half days ho was away he was sick; on his recovery ho resumed work. The union claimed this was a dismissal and re-engagement. .The 'Department did not so regard it, and refused to take action. The magistrate who heard the case brought by the union dismissed it, stating that, in his opinion, there was no break in the relationship of 'master and setrvant, so that in this instance the Department was quite justified in : refusing, to proceed against this firm for tho alleged offence. (3) Regarding Messrs. Eoyland and Co.: In. this case there was no dispute as to the facts. The question, from the Department's standpoint was as to what trade this particular work belonged to. 'l'lio work referred to, namely, shop-fronts,- shop ' and office fittings, and show-cases," was at the time, and is still claimed by the Carpenters and Joiners Union to be work that comes under their award. On the other hand, the Furniture Trades Ujjion also claimed, that it was work that, was covered by their award. . Aftei very exhaustive' inquiries,' the Department. arrived .at the conclusion that this was joiners' work, and declined to take action. The Furniture Trades Union, however, took action and 'secured a conviction and a. penalty. The Carpenters' Union is very much dissatisfied with*- the decision, and the matter'will probably bo reopened at an early date.

With regard to the case against Mr. Deiderick, which it is stated the Department "refused point-blank to. take," the offence fori which this man was fined was never referred to the Department at all. In July, 1909, tho secretary of the union complained that this employer had transferred three apprentices' from the Wellington Wood ware Company (lie, apparently, being under the impression that tho said apprentices had been transferred) and that it was a breach of tho award to do. so. ' A reply was sent on July 29 'Inst-, to tho effect that inquiries had been made . and . that the apprentices had not been taken over by 3lr. Deiderick, as they were at that time •itill engaged ill finishing work for Mr. Periard, of the Woodward Company. Tho said work had been -taken to Mr. Deiderick's factory because the late premises of the company were then occupied by another tenant.' At tho time referred to ill*. Deiderick employed two journeymen 'cabinetmakers, and under Clause 9 of the award could have taken over the apprentices if he had cared to do so. However, no sucil arrangement at that time had been made. The case taken by the union against Mr. Deiderick was for an offence committed during tho months of November and .December, 1909, at least three months after the complaint ■sent, to the Department had been dealt with. It will therefore be .seen that there were really only three bona fido complaints of alleged, breaches of the furniture trades award which the Department refused to take, and in every instance the Department felt justified in the course pursued. ,