ARBITRATION COURT

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 929, 23 September 1910, Page 8

ARBITRATION COURT

APPEAL CASES. , SEAMEN'S. MEAL HOTJES. Tho Arbitration Court, comprising Mr. Justice Sim- (president), Mr. W. Scott (employers' representative) and Mr. J. A. M'Cullough (trades unions' representative), resumed its sittings yesterday at 10 a.m. Appeals from magistrates' decisions were.taken first. ... The Australasian' Federated Seamen's Union, appealed against' a decision- of Mr. W. It. Haseldeh, S.M., Meeting the meal hours of- seamen. The union was' represented by Mr:' W. T. Young (secretary), and the respondent' (Union Steam Ship Company, Ltd.) •by Mr. P. Levi. The union had claimed in . the - lower Court .£lO as a penalty for a breach of the. award, tho particulars being as follows:— On Wednesday, May 25, 1910, the .deck hands'of the steamship Poherua. were employed between 12 noon and 1 p.m. at shifting ship' from' the Railway Wharf to the > Taranaki Street Wharf, Wellington, and were not sent to dinner uutil 12.45-p.m., contrary to clause 1 34 of the award,' which stipulates that the men shall receive the "recognised and . customary meal hours of the port, bay, or roadstead at which the'vessel'happens to be. 'In tho notice of appeal it was submitted that tho magistrate' was wrong in deciding that tho men could bo worked' through' the recognised, and customary meal hour on payment of overtime and a later hour being:provided for,the meal. It was submitted that' to/ establish a breach of the award : it was "sufficient'to prove that the :vessel was in'port, the wholeof the day, and that the men were worked throng!- 1 the recognised and customary meal, hour of the'pbrt'. . His Honour ■ said' .the Magistrate; ; in stating the case for appeal, should have given the .admitted facts, .and not at-; taclied all the evidence; as had been' done.-, It .was difficult to; discover what the case was all'about.- ..-,.■ Mr. YoungVsaid the ; facts of the case were'not disputed. ;The'Magistrate had held that the men : 'could be'worked durin». the recognised:.meal hour if- paid overtime,'and provided with 1 a, later hour' for the'"meal.. '-"With" this : finding the' union disagreed. • There was ; a provision in the award which allowed that; ifa vessel was leaving port'during a meal hour the'-men could be Worked; arid the; men on watch" given, a later.- hour for . le meal, -and, the watch below paid: an hour's overtime: 'This, hoivever,,did not apply:in the case of the,Poherua. 'She, .was in : port, -and"was moved' from one wharf ; to the other; There was another clause in the. award which • provided that seamen could be worked during the meal our-if for the safety: of the .ship: This, also, did-not. apply. -.He contended that it -would . not v have 'incbuyenienced, the ship if the men had been -giyon their nieal first, and the- steamer moved' afterwards. ','. ■'■,■, Mr. Levi said, the. wliolo point' was v.hother : tne company, .could work the men during .the; meal hour: and pay them, and .he., maintained: there was no- clause in the aivard prohibiting, this. ,■; In /dismissing „the -appeal,' l - the Eresi- • out,- Mr. Justice 'said the Court was : of, 'the- opinion 'that :the;awnl'd provided for they working ' of' inien .'during iii'o' ineal,hour;on• payment''of.iovertime, t'his'-was plain;-and;tlie' decision 1 of the Magistrate ; was ;right.' , Costs," 55., were allowed .against tho union.'■"■':■..■''■'...■"

;■;• THE SAIXOK'S STTNDAY: ':' :In the appeals from' the' Lower CourC which were taken : together,'' Mr.' A. L Herdman appeared for- Richardson and Co.,,shipowners,, and Mr: W.'T. Young for the Seamen's tJnipn.,-In .lone of these cases, the .steamer .Kahu,..on,' SundayMarch G; anohpred off Akitio.'.onthe East Coast,., for' the purpose of working cargo, but could.-not; do so. on. account of.', theweather,- andv-went on to- another port, iho .. company.., did riot:pay overtime' in' respect of this incident (as provided for Sunday.-work in port),, and ■ the'.magistrate had 1 held: that <a" breach of award had therefore been committed.' The-coni-ptiny; appealed..:. '.' ,; v "'.''' .■■'.''. '■'-.-' ■tin the. other '•case 'the : same company had ' been acquitted:*. byVthe magistrate on a charge of. breach. of .award .in not paying Sunday, overtime when 'the same boat anchored off Cape Turnagaih on Sunday, _ February 20, to.' work .cargo and did not do .so on account ,of.the 'state, of the weather. She.had worked cargo for .five, hours. at,, Akitio.! the same jiiorning. In this : case the union had' appealed;,. :;'■ After: hearing argument the judge said that the Court, had.; already ruled .that if a; boat/called at..;two. ports'■' on one■ Sunday the-men were''entitled:- to' overtime, at each-port,- The,' only:, question in the.,one case was whether the Kahu, on ■■ February 20,. arrived:', at: Cape Turnagain- within, the■ .'meaning-, of the Act.The Court, held'that, the .result' of what the, Kahu 'did., thore: was ..to'■ make' it a port. within the meaning .'of - Clause '12of the award, and the men were entitled to overtime in' respect: of that 'call as 1 well as tho.work.ar AMtio. on.lthelsame day! ~;: , The ..magistrate. -was Itherefore wrong,.-; and the appeal of the union was uphold.. The magistrate was right,in 'the'; other case.- What:■- happened ..at Akitio on March 6. was practically the same as ■what occurred' in -the .other' instance' at Turnagain. The company's: appeal.was dismissed. No penalty would.be imposed but Richardson and' Co.. would he ordered ■to pay, the costs of. the I union's .witnesses in the Magistrate's Court,-355.

'■■'■■■' TRTJCKING ONI THE. WHAM'.: C , In a matter which has been before/the Magistrate's; Court;-and.-was' mentioned at-the last sittings ,of the-'Arbitration Court in AVellington, Mr. ■' C. , H. ■ Izard ■appeared for the Wellington Harbour Hoard and Mr. T. Smith tor the' Wharf Labourers'"Union,.' ■ ■'.'■;- '•' Mr., Izard said that; the dispute related to; a breach ■-. lately . - committed, -when members, of the union Iliad wheeled two casks of cement on a sing'* truck. For' about,3o years,, continued counsel,' it. had ■been the practice for one man:-, to wheel two; cadis; of; cement.' -Thai : was 'admitted. : The ■ relevant. clause:, affected ■ was Clause 15 of the award of March- 2!,:'-1908. Under, the award -the: truck load for the' men'would be ? 6lGlb." A'cask "of cement weighed- 3911b.; - so ■ that if' tfie : men wheeled only ; one' cask 'it' would'"mean a- difference of:222lb:'belbiv;the' award: Oh' the ;other hand, wheeling, two casks (7881b.) made' the weight. 1721b.: over '. the award weight, as against- 2221b: underweight" by wheeling'only'..one cask. : These ' weights might vary lOlb.ja cask either-way.' The laward'was made'in March, 1905,' and this 'question was not .'raised'-';until last November." -~ ; | Mr. Smith said-the question 1 of wheeling hvo casks : of ceme.ut: -had .been a cause; of trouble - on the wharf for'many years.: It was-referred to' in ' argument .before 'the Arbitration' Court'in-'Juno l 1909. On' April '21-, of this year, 'in a ; case brought - -by the union, -.- the ; magistrate 'held that an excess of i92lb. over tho'6l6 mentioned in the award was unreason-' /able, and the board: was .therefore fined for a breach. Since : that date -:the board had had throe caskstrucked .by. hvo men, and that'plan-h'ad Vo'yfe'cil: very 'satisfactorily.'; It made -the load "only 1321b. less than the maximum for: ltw*o men as stated ;in the'."award." ITho above figures were : those on which the. case -' was argued before the magistrate, land those given, by Mr.' Izard' were-not correct. Sometimes the ■ men had to .take the casks■ a 'quarter of a-mile along the wharves'. ,; Mr. Izard : : said it took; much longer to w'oik the; thrco ■ casks; because they' had._tcC-.be loaded on arid made fast. . ■;;. His"; Honour, asked what was : dohea.t other pbrtsi','■; v - ■■; •■ :-, Mr. 'Smith said there" w-as very little trucking of cement along the ■ wharves' at other ports. ■"'' '•:' ,:Mr. D-SlTjaren, M.P;, who was looking on, said, on beinj; asked, that at Auckland carts came right down to the ship's 'side. . ' . . . ' . Mr. Izard said the board did not want I,to take the work away from the men, but that would, have to be their answer if

union got its way. in the matter. 1 The judge said tlio Court was not unanimous iu iU decision. Tho view of the majority v;as that very great weight must be given to a practice which had pre-, vailed about thirty years, namely, that two casks of cement had been treated as a reasonable load for one man. This practice had net been called in question when awards were made in 1901, 1903, and 1908. But for that practice, the Court would have hesitated to say that the phrase "as near as practicable" would cover as great an excess as 1721b. The decision of the Court was that it did not constitute a breach of the award for one man to wheel two casks weighing 7881b. on. one truck. Mr. M'Cullough 'did not concur. in this.

A QUESTION OF DOMICILE. In the case of Alice Burke v.'John Cecil Montefiore, of Sentry Hill, a com- '. pensation claim' arising out of the death from accident of claimant's husband, the defence, represented by Mr. IV S. Weston, applied'for' security for, costs. Mr. P. Levi appeared for the defendant..' Tho ground of the application was that deceased's domicile of origin was Victoria, and that his wife and children resided there at tho time -of his; death, and had not since, acquired domicile in New Zealand. ' The Court held that the ■ facts going to show a change of domicile on .the part •of the deceased-were not strong. An order was made for as security, for costs, to be lodged within two months. TOTAL BLINDNESS.: The claim of Sydney St. John Lidiard, master of the steamer Pi Toi-Toi, against, Frederick Iredale: for compensation for total blinduess came up by way of' an application by the defendant for securityfor costs. Applicant was represented by Mr. T. S.. Weston, .who stated that Mr. P. J. O'Regan, who had been engaged by the other side, had. telephoned asking him to request the. Court .to take the. case later in the. day. •- , ,\ ■ The judge said it was unfortunate that' Mr. O'Regan.'. was not /present,'as (■ the case could not be ; taken later in .the. . day. The Court would have to hear him," but could not fix a. time. >.: WORKERS*. COMPENSATION.'CLAIMS..; The following /claim's 'by\the Public; Trustee' were '■■ dealt with by the Arbitration Court, on themotion of Mr. J; W. Macdonald, solicitor to the Public Tros-, tee:—' . ' : .:. ./; 1. Against the Minister for Railways in respect of the death of Thouias Pringle, ,-late of; Sydenham,' engine-driver., JoOO compensation . apportioned; between de-ceased's-widow., and two, infant 2. Against the Consolidated ,Goldfields at ' New Zealand, Ltd., inrospectof the;:death of' John Richards,, late of Black's Point, 1 miner, /deceased. \. compensation to be' held as a common, fund for deceased's, widow and infant child, and applied by. Public Trustee for their benefit. .... 3; Against His Majesty/the King;in re-;, spect of tie death of- Henry: Herbert Hancos, late of ..,Okarito, police constable. .£SOO : cbmrjonsation, to be . applied. by < the Public. Trustee for-'benefit of deceased's .four infant, children. ■■:.".■ Vv . ■ :[i- Against N.. -Irving,'-'of. ■ • bush contractor, in: respect. of death :of Peter, Leef, late of ■' bushman. 1 d£4GB ; compensation/'"apportioned /'.between'.'. widow and/four infant'.'.children. , : ( '5. Against the Wostport.'Coal Company,Ltd.,';n respect-ofrthe -death of. Thomas ••' Maloney, late of. Millertori, .-miner. -■ .£SOO compensation: apportioned . between, de--ceased's widow and-two infant children.;.- : G. Against tho ,Westport ; Coal. Company, Ltd., in respect of; the ;'.death ■■ of Edward G. Lbnne,.. late of Dennistoii,. miner, ■ de- ; ceased. . ,I£4GB 13s. compensation . appor-' tioried l between .deceased's .widow !and ■ infant child.: v", ; ?'■.'.;;- ,;' : ■';.;."/ :'.■://;;'. .All infants' .shares .were directed-to ; !be retained ..by the Public Trustee and, ap/- ; plie'd at. Public Trustee's; discretion-/for, 'maintenance. ....'.. .':' V;-. . ;-'/. ''■.;■'.'. ..'■': '.-■• -// ;