LABOR MATTERS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 1814, 21 July 1906, Page 2

LABOR MATTERS.

PRESS ASSOCIATION Auckland, last night. . In defending an Epsom carter named Tbog. 8. Hill, summoned before Mr Kettle, 8.M., for neglecting to pay two employees their wages weekly, Mr J. R. Reed contended that the Workmen’s Wages Act did not provide a penalty for the breach of the particular section dealing with payment of wages, the section being really to make it cloar that wages were due weekly. Whoever heard, he continued, of a statute making it a crime for a man’s neglect to pay civil debts? The men’s wages would be paid before a civil aoiion was heard, and it was not right to make a man a criminal under such circumstances. Tho Magistrate replied shat a man who broke such a law could not be regarded as a criminal, and if he could show good reason why tho wages conld not be paid regularly he was not liable. Mr Reed quoted an expression of opinion by Chief Justice Prendergast in giving judgment in Cash v. Chaffer, 3s follows: “ I think this Act (the Workmen’s Wages Act) was only intended to apply to a cane where there are three parties, not necessarily before the Court, but three parties concerned, the employer, or contractee, the contractor, and the working man.” In the faee of this judgment Mr Reed submitted that His Worship could hot deal with the matter under notioe. Mr Skelton, who represented plaintiffs on behalf of the Auckland Carters' Industrial Union, said the Aal was described in the heading es an Aot to ensure better provision for the payment of wages to workmen, and such a declaration was quite contrary to the opinion of the learned judge. Mr Kettle decided to dismiss the case, remarking that be oonld not go against the decision of the Supreme Court, and Mr Skelton accordingly asked for leave to appeal as the question affected the whole body of workmen. Lsave to appeal was granted. Wellington, Jsst night

The Supreme Court is engaged with the hearing of a special case stated by the President of the Arbitration Court. The question is one connected with the shipping award, and the Court is asked to determine as to the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court to make awards affeoting employers beyond the territorial limits of the colony. It was alleged that bre aches of the cooks and stewards award had taken place while the Union Company’s steamers were in Australian ports. Addressing the Court to day on behalf of the Union Company, Mr Levi contended that the New Zealand jurisdiction did not extend beyond the three mile limit of the New Zealand coast. He pointed out that section 35 of the English Merchants' Shipping Act, 1894, gave our Legislature power to legislate for our coastal traffic, but such legislation had to be reserved for consent of the British Sovereign. The Arbitration Act had not received the assent of the British Sovereign, and therefore could not even affect the coastal traffic of New Zealand, let alone traffic on the high seas, and what was done on the Union Company’s boats in an Australian port. The Company, though holding the award did not apply beyond the limit, did not object to coastal boats being bound by the award, but objected to be bound by awards made without authority by the New Zealand Legislature to extend to Australian ports.

WaDganui, last night. In regard to the request of the Employers’ Federation that Mr Tregear bo removed from his position as Secretary for Labor, the following resolution was passed by the Wanganui Trades and Labor Couucil: “That this Council approves of the Hon. Premier’s action in refusing the request of the Employers’ Federation.”

Later—ln the Supreme Court Mr Chapman for Huddart, Parker and Co, followed much on the same liues as Mr Levi. He submitted that the award of the Arbitration Court did not bind Huddatl Parker and Co., whioh was an Australian company in State law. The HuddartParker Company oould deduot from its men’s wages as soon as their boats were outside New Zoaland any amounts in exobsh of Australian rates that the oompany might be required to pay while tn New | Zealand. He sumbitted, too, that tbn Arbitration Court award did not affcot bis clients’ boats while in Now Zealand. The Huddart-Parker Company’s registration did not make it " a person in New Zealand. As to the cooks’ and stewards' award that was a local award applicable to Wuilington industrial district, and rua« mng do further.

Mr Juetioe Chapman said that be wrote to Government ten months ago, asking that machinery to permit of a general award for the whole of New Zealand be toaao, Mr Justioe Edwards said it seemed I probable to him that if Huddart, Parker xt b?' ? ho ? V8 ‘ 1 it was not amenable to New Zealand laws Parliament would prevent the company's vessels from oomiDg m at all. s Mr Justioo Chapman did Dot think they could do bo. Suoh an action would probably bo ultra vires.

Dr. Findlay; Wo could make it most unhappy for you to come in though. After replying to tbo arguments adI auoed, Dr Findlay besought the Beuoh to give an early judgment on points raised, it tbo contentions of counsel opposed to him were correct, this country was now exposed so far as seamen and all others engaged on shipboard ware concerned to risks and losses ocoaßioued by a great maritime strike, and to obviate whioh the labor laws wore principally passed, Judgment was reserved.