"WHAT GOOD? WHAT GAIN?"

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1221, 1 September 1911, Page 6

"WHAT GOOD? WHAT GAIN?"

INDUSTRIAL CASE. UNION GOES TO COTJUT AFTER . DEPARTMENT DECLINES. A':'breach of award case, bearing 6omo Interesting phases, was before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., yesterday: The Wellington Tinpiato and Sheetmetal Operatives' Union of Workers proceeded against iiallinger Bros, to recover . £10 -as penalty for a breach of award. The > particulars,.(as set ■ out) were , that Ballinger- Bros. I had . employed H.. Williams, A. Parker, and'J. Jacobsen on tho Prince .of. Wales' 'Birthday (June 23), and had; paid them-ordinary time, instead of time and a half. E.- 11. Crease and Son, Ltd., were also proceeded against on a similar allegation. Mr. Smith (of 'Findlay and Smith) appeared for the union; and Mr. T. Young for'iitho defendants. : Mr. Smith said that all the' firms in tho-city had observed the award except Ballinger Bros, and Crease and Son. This action was to that payment of overtime should be made to the employees of these two firms. Mr. C. Noot, secretary of the. union, gave evidence. He mentioned that tho union had .passed a resolution that these actions fihould be brought. He had reported the matters to the Labour Department, and, in i.-replvV' had received the following letter to ypur letter of Jul}- 5, in respect of Messrs. Crease, and Co. and Ballinger Bros, failing to pay overtime for work done on holiday, very full inquiries have been made, and it is found that- both of lh£se firms conferred wit'i their men, and, asked, which day they preferred to have, and they decided that'.'they would rather have Coronation Day, which ■was, accordingly observed in both these ■ factories. The Prince of Wales' Birthda yfyvas treated as an ordinary, day, and paid at .ordinary, rates. . Our inspector has -interviewed every workman concerned, and, without exception,, they bear out the statement of .the .employers that they were'' dsked and agreed to Coronation Day. That being so, the Department cannotseo its way clear to take any action. It is open, for the union or the employees themselves , to .sue' for- overtime in tho ordinary .way at tho Magistrate's Court. Mr. Young: You-reported the matter to the Labour Department?—" Yes." gavo youVthat snub ?—"ApptaentYou thought it wise to bring the action ?J? ,}'°u r own?—"No: I'm the servant of the union.". J . Who brought thci matter before the u ?^ n , ? r Tho re P 1 >" was tllat an employee ol Ballinger Bros.. had: done so. 'Did"you. produce that' letter at 'tho union meeting?—" Yes." A So, then, it is on your' suggestion that this was .done ?—'""No." AVhat: •arc yo.ii?—"Secretary." Are you a tinsmith?—" No.'". Are you anything?—" Painter and papernanger. r 1 Do you ever do anything?"—"No,-I am engaged as secretary for small unions." ' 1 ,J 0U make any inquiries as to whe- : ther the men had ' made any arrange- .. ment with their employers?—'' No." There-was considerable doubt as, , to 'S«m? ■ - " I ® so days was to be observed?— ,'J- ".ere was no doubt in the minds of the, ■tinsmiths' Union." , ' Mr. Young, made some remark ,as to tlie reasons of the men-in desiring'to be free on Coronation Day. The witness remarked that, if the emplovorg "wore so loyal,.tliey should be'willing to pav. . Arthur;Ernest. ; Parker deposed that ho fl?!', . Ballinger Bros, on Prince of Wales Birthdaj', and had.received ordinary payment. • . • ' iT? Young: The men wanted Coronation, Day, and it was out of consideration for tho men that tho firm granted the request to substitute one day for the other.- .He got-paid by the hour, and could not afford to take both days. John Jacobsen gave somewhat similar evjdehce. . . JAre you unfavourably disposed towards the union? the, witness..was asked. Witness replied that he was not. ' , You don't do much for it'?—" Well, it's neveir douq much for me.*" . doling did not consider it necespTfian, .'to .call. evidence -for fclie defence, f. All tho defendants wanted to show had ■ been established on the evidence given ■ gy< *h« union's witnesses.- Mi:. Justice him had said in tho Arbitration Court Kome time ago: "This Court -views with grave suspicion cases which the -Department.refuses to take np."' .This.'was one of those l cases. 'Pliis'wr.s a'most' scandalous thing on. the .Noot. Noot had known;., that there Vivas no 'case, and that Ballinger Bros. ■ had been treating,'the men with great consideration:. . Bal,lin»ei' Bros, had been prepared to give the men both days,, which would have been a great: sacrifice on the part oi ,tn( am, and.really a magnanimous offer. 4 But married men with, families could-liot afford to havo tiro-'days. ;So in order to meet'the wishes of the men they had given them Coronation Day. Complaint had been, made 'by no one else but i\oot. Men like Noot were the people who caused so im'uch trouble in arbitration. A case brought under ttiese circumstances was worth very littlo consideration by the Court.' In these days therp is too much friction find too little harmony ibctiveen employer, and employee. In , this matter a technical breach had been.made, but if a breach was-excusable or trivial the Court had power to disjniss the case. Coronation Day was an occasion which could"not. he. met by-Act ' of Parliament, because such days only occurred' once in : a goodi many:-years. It ha<l to -be met on 'the spot, and the emplojers had met it as best, they could. This- was a case in which the Court was intended.'to exercise its power -to dismiss ■ the case. * Mr. Smith considered that "the aspersions cast by Mr.r Young on Mr. Noot" were quite unwarranted. Noot had stated in evidence that it was by resolution of the union that it was decided to bring the eases. Tho union had . been quite opeii in the anatter. The union considered that. tlie award should be observed inasmuch as' overtime should .be paid. The Labour .Department, it had iieen known had been compromising about Coronation Day, so it had been left to the Union to toko this action. All the other firms had "been loyal to the award." Theso firms would havo employed tho men on the day--in question quite legally if they had paid time and a half. , His Worship said that it was necessary on holidays to prfy timo hnd a half, and tho Princo of Wales's Birthday was one of those days recognised in the award as a holiday. The provision - was made for Coronation ".Day; The defence was that the employers and the employees made a contract ,to, substitute one ■ day for the .other. The. circumstances were unusual, v.'Coronation. Day .was-not a yearly holiday, and may not fall once in twenty yearii, and'no one knew in what year, or at least what dace,' it would fall.- It was doubtful whether employers or employees could 'do this kind of thing with tho award. At tho_ samo time, when there were).unusual circumstances it was questionable if there was more than a technical'teeach. What good could bo done, or what-could be gained, by taking on action such as this against the employers? It seemed to him that in making the bargain,- and accepting it, the employees gave up any claim they might havo 'had to overtime. They had been aware that s if they, worked on the Princo of Wales's Birthday they were entitled to overtime, but they gave up. this day for the other. They had recognised that the position was not an ordinary one, and they had acted in their own interests, though not strictly speaking in accordance with the award. -There was no doubt whatever that this case was one in which the Court might dismiss tho case on 'the grounds that'the breach was trivial or excusable. Mr. 1 --young suggested 1 that in view of the circumstances the union should be made to pay costs. The case against Crease and Son, Ltd., also,'was-dismissed.