MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1749, 14 May 1913, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

alleged breach of award. rETO.XE 3JILI.S. In till' Magistrate';; Court: yesterday morning th? I'ctono (Wellington) Woollen Mills Kmnloycoa' Industrial I'mon of Worker* claimed »■ penalty of .to trom the Wellington Woollen Manufacturing Companv. Ltd.. for an fillersd bleach of .v.vanl. 'The breach was said to uo outlined in tlio itotcincni to tho effect that thy company failed to pay tho boys and ■-iris employed by it op. a weekly wages for the period December 25, M 2, to January 6. 19)3, wlulo the iactory at TV'ono closed. Mr W. G. I'iddell, S.M., was on tho Bench. Mr. D. 31. I'indlay appeared for tht plaintiff union, and Mr. A. lilair withe defendant company. Ylfrod Erusst DoniU', secretary to tho TVtone Woollen Mills Company, was called by Mr. F'nclby. lie staled tlint the mill was closed trom December 25 to lanuarv 6. A numbsr of boys and. girls were employed at 'ilie mill, and the:r wages lvero not pairl during the close neriod mentioned, esrept for the statutory holidays, Ckrktmas Day and New Year's Day- The mill was not closed through accident to >thc machinery. , Mr. Blair: "Will you please explain wliv the mill was closed?" 3lr Danno: ' lor tho statutory holidays and for cleaning and repairing tho machinery." . . What does that involve?— It involves the dismantling of the whole of the power machinery." . , , Tho factory cannot run without that machinery;:—"Xo." , Is that a necesaix work• Hie deiui•ing of -the machiasry is provided for by the Act."

Yes,, but, apart from 'tire Act, is it essential?—"les." ... And lias it always been done at tills time of the year P-'Tor many years, as at that time of tho year so many ot tue hands wish to. go away. , Aro the hands aware of this prnctico. "Yes; many of them ask for extra lioliila's it ever been the custom to_ pay the hands for these holidays?— Ao. What would it involve to pay tlio boy.-, and girls for this closed period. About If you did not do this work at Christmas, you could cliooso any other time oi the vear.-r'Yes." , But would another 'hmo bo as c0 "\f 11 ?; ent to tho hands?—"No; they pretci because it is the holiday season. . You had a numter of men there uoin_ the cleaning. Were they paid SP rates?—" They wcro paid ordinary iyv;s for ordinary doy.s but special rates otllCl " Has tho factory inspector taken anr action with regard to tills matter. i ■ The company suggested to tto JJ" that an interpretation should be sought. -"Yes, we asTied the Department. Mr. Blair urged that it was a matter for grave suspicion when an 'nspector awards refused to tako action regardm, the matter. .. . .. ilr. Findlay: Aim't you aware that tlie Lalwur Department said you made a breach of award? Witness: Yes—which we deny. .Thcu some timo . later you put 3 0111 ease in tho hands of tho Employers Association ?—"Yes." . . And they endeavoured to get an inter protation on your behalf? Yes. Jll'. Blair remarked that the proceedings were taken in a remarkablo way. ino union, apparently, was afraid to go tho Arbitration Court for an i nt "n re ,\f" tion of tho matter. The union had tlie "unblushing impudence to come here • md charge us with breach of award wnero there could bo no breach at all. Walter Kamsden, manager of the company, who has been with 'the since its inception (27 years ago), stat that it was necessary for the safe running of tho concern to havo an annual overhaul of the machinery. Tbis w done every year sines tho mill and tho hands were not only aware ot nils but looked forward to the. closing. ; ployces wero not paid during tlic_o days. ' Decision reserved.

THE GTJAEANTOK. In the case of the Community nistnbi'iitin" Company v. John Wright, in which it was alleged that the had Guaranteed (withm a limit of money) the liabilities-of a third party, was enteerl by Dr. M''Artliur b.M- for the plaintiffs for X 3 lis. 3d., with £1 Itscosts.

NON-DELI VERY OF MILLS. Arthur D. Itilev and Co., Ltd., WellipK* ton, sued Kerr's New Zealand .Wncv "Wollinston, for £U 4s. 10(1., as damages alleged to have sustemed through the non-delivery of certain r |lr.' T. Young appeared for the plantiff, and Mr. D. S. Smith for the defendant. Dr. M'Arthur, S.M., wlio heard the case, reserved his decision. UNDEFENDED CASES. In the following cases judgment was entered by Dr. M'Arthur, S.M.. for the Henry Zealand" FriUt'' a? Produce Company, Ltd! v. Herbert Malpas, i! 2 18s. Id., 5*.; and Field ond Luckie v. Jp.eph Jaics Moore, X' 3 costs.3* JUDGMENT SUMMONS. John Hanson- was ordered to, pay James Smith, Ltd., JE2 IDs."by May <2t.