ALLEGED BREACHES OF AWARDS

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 68, 14 December 1920, Page 3

ALLEGED BREACHES OF AWARDS

REPLACING NON-UNIONISTS,

In the Magistrate's Court yesterday -afternoon, before Mr. W. G. Kiddell, S.M., Mr. U. T. iiailey, Inspector of Awards, proceeded against E. IV. Martin, Tory Street, plumber, to recover penalties of ,£lO in respect of each of three alleged breaches of the plumbers' and gasfitters' award, namely (1) That ho failed to jyiy an cmplovoc. James Uarnior, the award rate of 2s. lid, per hour; (2) that he failed to pay Harold Coles the award rato of 2s. 3d. per hour; and (3) that he failed to pay liobert Christie the award rate of 2s. 3d. per hour. In respect to tho second charge, it was pointed out that the employee was SiO years of age, and just about out of his time. After hearing the evidence the Magistrate nonsuited plaintiff in rospect to the second charge, but convicted the defendant on the other two charges, and lined him ill on each, with costs 12s. Gamier and Christie, for accepting un-dcr-rate wages, were each fined ss.

W. S. Scott was charged with committing bronchos of tlio bakers' award In respect to two youths. After hearing the evidence the Magistrate said he must convict the defendant on both ohnrgm, although lie was not satisfied that Scott hnd not paid the youths a full wage. However, he did not pay them the award rate which was fixed'for adults. Stfolt was finod .I*l on each charge. P. M'Bride was charged with committing n brea'ch of the furniture trade award in failing to pay a worker the award rato of wages. Tho defendant, who did not appear, was convicted and fined .£3.

N. Fennandos, fish merchant, waa' charged with committing two breaches of the drivers' award, m employing two non-unionists. Jlr. A. AY. Ulair,-who appeared for the defendant, said that Hie preference clause provided that if a nonunionist- wero empluyed, the employer must dismiss him it'- he failed to join tho union within 1-1 days. provided tlio union was able to supply a man willing and competent to undertake ■ the workperformed by the non-unionist. The onuii was on tlio union in this respect, and counsel contended that tho two men sent by tlio union were not as competent as the two non-unioiiiota. It was • shown by the evidence- that the defendant was approached by the union secretary, who afaked him to tell the men .to join the union. The defendant replied that tho men could do as they pleased. The matter was reported to the Inspector of Awards, and tlio men later joined tho union. For the union it was contended that the two unionists who were ready and willing to tnke tho places of the non-unionists were competent and fit to do-tho heavy work involved. The Magistrate said that under the preference clause i£ was for the, union to produce of doing tho work with as mu'cTi elKeiency ns the non-unionists. There was some doubt whether the men produced by the union were equally comwith tho men Whom tho union There was' no evidence that they had been employed in the fish llus'iiiess, and taking their physical fitness into consideration the employer was doubtful whethnr they could do the work. , He might have been prejudiced by the fact that the two non-unionists OfTncw; th'e work and the two unionists would have to be trainod. The Magistrate was not' prepared to say, on the evidence submitted, that tho plaintiff had made out a case. He therefore nonsuited the plaintiff.