FURNITURE UNION FAILS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1428, 1 May 1912, Page 3

FURNITURE UNION FAILS.

ON PRECEDENT. At tho Magistrate's Court yesterday, Dr. M'Arthur, S.M., gave judgment in an industrial case of rather wide interest. Tho matter was ono in which Charles Goldman, a Wellington upholsterer, wis charged with having employed, during Atarch, Mi, an apprentice named George Styles at tho rate of lUs. pr.T week, instead of 125., which latter amount h the wage stipulated by the latest award as tho amount to bo paid to apprentices in then- second year. J:'or mis alleged breach tho Wellington I'urniture Workers Union claimed n penalty of XI, At the hearing oi the case Mr. D. Moriarty (secretary of the union) stated tnat btyles had been indentured under tlie old award, which had been made in lMu, but which had been superseded by the award of 1911. Tho question before tno Court was:—Are apprentices, who were indentured prior to the coming into ioreo of the new award subject to the new award's provisions:- , Section 69 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act, 19U8, Mr. Moriarty pointed out, reads: Every award or industrial agreement shall prevail over any contract of service or apprenticeship in force on tho coming into operation of the award or industrial agreement so far as there is any inconsisiency between the award or industrial agreement, and tho contract shall then-alter -be construed and have effect as if the same had been modihed so far as necessary in order to conform to tho award or industrial agreement.

Mr. Moriarty stressed the words; Every award shall prevail over any contract or apprenticeship in force on the coming into operation of the award. He contended that it was quite impossiblo to set np a defence which could succeed in the taco of Mint section of the Act.

: Defendant's counsel, Mr. P. W. Jackson, argued that the provisions of Section 69 did not apply to cases in which apprentices were indentured under an award which was afterwards superseded by another award. Tho section, he said, ; only operated in cases in which an award : was made for the first time in connection wif.h nn industry. It had not been intended by the Legislature that later awards should interfere with contracts duly made in accordance with an early ■ award. Ho quoted two cases which he said were on all fours with this one, and in both of which Judge Sim, of he Arbitration Court, had decided on lines which were precisely the same as tlioso he \ilr. Jackson) had submitted to his worship. Mr. Jackson considered that Judge Sim's decision constituted a precedent which decided the present case. Mr. Moriarly replied that there was no clause in the Furniture Workers' Award Stating that "existing arrangements n.ay continue. Commenting on Mr. Jacksou s point as to the intention of tho Legislature, he said: "Regarding the contention that the provision of Section 69 applies only to awards made for the first time, the intention of the Legislature is very plain indeed. Is it reasonable to suppose that the Legislature, in 1908 after eighteen years of the Act, was going to amend it for first awards only? If Par lament was nsked to amend the Act in the morning for the purpose of makiiv its intention clear, it could not make it any clearer. If it was not clear that the r.ow award has taken the place of the old award, journeymen who wanted to make their positions secure could sign i.n for three years under tho old award just the day before tho new one came into operation. Ihe position would be nn absurdity, li the new. award is in force, how are we going to enforce tho provisions of tho old award?"

Dr. M Arthur's judgment ran: "The plaintiff relies on Section 69 of tho Industrial Conciliation nnd Arbitration Amendment Act, lflOS. Counsel for the defendant has cited to me two cases which, in mv opinion, compel mo to decide against the plaintiff. Tho first of. these cases is Urowctt v. Wright. That case was on all fours with the ono I am now deciding. In his'judgment Mr. Justice Sim said:— " 'The new award was not intended to apply to apprentices who were serv- ; ing Miuler contracts'only made in nccordance with the provisions of the ' first award. It was intended to apply only to apprentices who were engaged after that award had come into force.' "This appears to me to defeat the plaintiff's case. The second case cited Was Gchns v. Swales. Mr. Justice Sim, in the courso of his judgment, said:— " 'Whore a second or later award is made in connection with the same industry, such second or later award is not intended to interfere with contracts of apprenticeship duly made in accordance with the provisions of any earlier award.' "Under the authority of these two cases, I must give judgment for the defendant." "I am afraid, Mr. Moriarty," remarked Dr. M'Arthui , , on concluding his judgment, "they aro all against you." WHAT IS MAINTENANCE ? Dr. M'Arthur delivered judgment in the case in which the Public Trustee, as ndministrator of the estate of Jabez ttousc, deceased, proceeded against tho borough of New Plymouth to recover £6 us. 6d. The amount of the claim was said to be tho balance payable fot the "medical and funeral expenses" of the deceased, under the Workers' Compensation Act, 1908, n,< follows:—Maiutenanoo (in New Plymouth Uospitnl), £?i 25.; iuucral expenses, .u 10s.; and medical attendance, ,£1 Is. At the hearing Mr. Hay represented the Public Trustee, and Mr. M. Myers the defendant. / In support of his contention that the plantiff was entitled to judgment, Mr. J lay. had quoted a decision given in the State of lowa, in America. On this point Mr. Myers had remarked that if the Public Trust Office, instead oi looking over a decision given in the State of lowa, had locked at the New Zealand statutes, the action would probably never have been brought. In a case of this kind, where the matter depended on the construing of the New Zealand statute;, tho decision of, perhaps, an elected judge or justice in the State of lowa was of just about as much value in a New Zealand Court as the decision of, say, justices of tho pej'.co at Waipukurau. would be iu tho State of lowa.

"Counsel for the defendant," said his Worship in his judgment, cited an American case, which, with all due respect to those, who gave tho decision, could not possibly be considered an authority to be relied on." His Worship said that tho question was whether "maintenance" was included in the following provision oi the Workers' Compensation Act: "A sum equal to the reasonable expenses of bU medical or surgical attendance." "In tho Shipping and Seamen's Act, 1008," he continued, "at Section 119, Subsections 2 (a) and 3 (a), 'maintenance' mid 'medical attendance' are clearly distinguished, neither one covering tho other. And this distinction is also maintained in tha Shipping and Season's Act, 1009, Section .2. In tho ITnspit.il and Charitable Institutions Act, l'JOfl, Section 2, 'relief includes maintenance and every other form of medical, surgical, or other assistance. Considering Hie nbovo sections of tho statutes cited, I am of the opinion that, the words 'medical and surgical attendance' do not include, 'maintenance,' and therefore that tho defendants are not liable for maintenance." Judgment was for tho defendant. CARTER'S DAMAGES. Daniel Scanlon had judgment given in his favour in tho case- in which ho olaimed £28 os. Cd., as special damages, and JUO as general damages, from Dalgety and Co. Tho plaintiff, who is a carter, statod that on December 15, 1011, when he had been loading wool at defendants' store, a bale of wool had fallen down tho lift well on to plaintiff's dray, and had rebounded and knocked him off the dray, with the result that he had been injured, and thereby prevented from working at nil till January IG. and then from working mere than half-time for a fortnight. In the course nf his judgment, Dr ITArtliui, S.M,, said that he thoucht

that (ho weight of evidence was in the. plaintiff's favour, and that proper and reasonable earn had not been exercised by the. servants of the defendant company. Judgment, was for the plaintiff for .£3l 18s. 18s. Oil. special damages and ■C 5 general damages-. MERCHANT FIRM'S CLAIM. Hughes and Cossnr, merchants, Ancleland, sued L. Caselborg and Co., Ltd., trading as Kops Ale Brewery, ■Wellington, for ..(Mo 11s. lid. as the'balance of an account for goods supplied. Mr. V. I!. Meredith appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. T. C. ITislop for the defendant. Decision in tho case was reserved. ABOUT A BUILDING. Hearing of the case of H. E. Manning v. H. C. Clark and Mrs. H. C. Clark was concluded. Plaintiff claims £SH I.ls. Gd. as money due for additions and alterations to a building. Defendants paid .£3B 9i. into Court, and they dispute the balance of the claim. Mr. A. Blair appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. M. Myers for the defendant. UNDEFENDED CASES. In the following c.ise3 judgment was entered for the plaintiffs by defanlt:"llliams and Meredith v. Matthew Somers, £1 13s. 6d., costs 75.; Chas. Albert Innes v. Thomas Hodees. .£2 95., costs 10s.; Jerusalem and Co., Ltd. v. \V. Slaney, .£lO 19s. Gd., costs £1 10s. Gd.; John Chambers mid Sons, Ltd. v. Francis Kobertson, £5 IBs. Gd., costs £1 13s. Gd.; H. Anhn v. John Lucas, 12s. 2d., costs 55.; John Edward Butler. Ltd. v. Wm. J'rancia York, Jas. York, and Clarence K. York, ,£3l 7s. 2<1., costs ,£1 3s. rnos. H. Oates v. Jos. James Moore, £5 55., costs XI 7s. 6d.; Henry Kirkby Robertshaw v. Mrs. Mannersley, 11s. Id., costs 11s.; E. Reynolds and Co., Ltd. v. M Kenzie Bros., ,£3B 10s. 7d., costs "s. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. Spens Black was ordered to pay ,£ls 4s. to Frost and Frost by May 14. Julius Lamberg was ordered to pay .£lO 11s. Gd. to Rolx-rt Isbister and Co. by May 11.