ARBITRATION COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2196, 21 May 1908, Page 1

ARBITRATION COURT.

SITTINGS IN GISBORNE.

Tho annual sittings of the Arbitration Court in Gisborne wore opened yesterday beforo his Honor Mr. 'Justice Sim, and Messrs S. Brown ami ? J. McCullough. 3 The following is the list of cases cot down for hearing: 3 Dispute: Waterside' workers. 3 Compensation case: Harwood v. do Lautour. 3 Enforcement of awards: Tailors’ ‘ award : Inspector of Awards v. Com- ’ moil, Shelton and Co; same v. Ross- ! bothani and Searle (J), sumo v. G. Holmes (3j. Bakers’ and Pastry Cooks’ award : Inspector of Awards v. W. MeCronc ; | same v. S. Wootton; same v. E. Williams; same v. J. V. Dooling. Car]ienters’ and Joiners’ award; Inspector of Awards v. Sheet Bros. (3); same v. V. A. E., Forbes; came v. J). Peach (2) ; same y. IV. Tliolwall; same v. T. ’Harding (2); saino v. F. Hall and Sons; same v. C. Taylor; same v. D.-.yi. ■B.Jytli; same v. It. S. Bryce (2)'; siuno vv. J. East (2); saino v.D. Brodie; same v. A. It. Allen. ... ’ Painters! award: Inspector 0 f Awards v. D. A. Blytli. 'Tailtfrosses’ utwaiil: Inspector of Awards v. W. Lewis. Tho first mattor mentioned was the waterside workers’ industrial dispute. Mr. It. E. Way represented tho Union, Mr. Kirby tho Union Company, Mr. Warren Nelson Bros., Mr. W. E. Cederwall tho Gisborne Sheepl'armors’ Company, and Mr. Pryor tho Napier stevedores. The Court ordered that a conference be held, and a report to ho made at 10 o’clock this morning. COMPENSATION CASE. In tho case in which William Harwood claimed £IOO as compensation from Mr. C. ~A. DeLuutour for the death of his sou Charles at respondent’s saw mill some fifteen months ago. Mr. Einn said Mr. DeLautour had agreed to pay £IOO to Mr. Harwood, and tho matter had been settled. ' ENFORCEMENT OF AWARDS. Inspector of Awards (Mr. Gohns) v. Common, Shelton and Co. (Mr. Pryor). The Inspector stated that this was a breach of the tailors’ award, respondents having accepted the' order for a 6uit of clothes, which were made up off the premises, at a tailor’s establishment, thereby committing a breach. Mr. Pryor, for Messrs Common, Shelton and Co., who had committed the breach in ignorance of tho law, admitted the facts. Tile Court found that tho breach was the result of a bona fide mistake, but employers should make themselves acquainted with the particulars. Respondents were fined £l, and ordered to pay costs of hearing. Same v. George Holmes (three cases). Mr. Pryor, for Mr. Holmes, said , that it had been very difficult to get , bands in Gisborne during tiie season, and when labor was not available , work was sent out to Mrs. Rice’s, a ( registered factory, and in this res- ( pect respondent was not the- only ] sinner. This arrangement had been overlooked by the Department, and , it was agreed with the Inspector that tho ends of justice would be met by , recording a conviction without a fine, ‘ seeing that it was a custom which was no longer to continue, and in * which: the tailors had generally par- * ticipated. . Mr. Gohns added that the facts were pretty well those which had been stated. (

The Court accordingly recorded a broach.

The hearing of the other case of employing too many apprentices was next proceeded with. The Inspector explained the respondent employed three apprentice girls and only two female operatives when lie was only entitled to one. Respondent contended that two of the apprentices were journey women, and were paid journeywomen’s wages. Mr. Pryor submitted that Misses Yowles a tufa Peterson were each paid 21s per week as trouser hands, which was the full amount by the award for third-class hands. The Inspector maintained that tho two employees were nine months previous to the date of citation (January 21), taken on as an apprentices, and their status could not bo raised. A girl could not bo treated during the period of her' learning as anything but an apprentice was the rule that had been laid down by the Court. His Honor held that an employer might put any person on, and pay journeyman’s wages if they chose to. Even though girls might be taken on as apprentices, there was nothing to prevent the parties to the contract terminating the apprenticeship anil raising their status and paying'them higher wages. If an employer was, through the dearth of labor, compelled to employ wliat was really apprentice workmen and pay them journeymen’s wages, there was nothing to prevent this being done. Mr. Pryor, in reply, maintained that the Coui*t could make the young woman anything else but a journeywoman. She had, through tho Inspector’s advice-, been made an apprentice, and was earning lGs per week, and but for the Inspector’s interference sho would have been going on at 21s. Mr. Holmes was prepared to cancel the indentures and pay her 21s again, hut Mr. Gohns said lie could not. The case was dismissed. The same respondent was then charged with employing a girl (Miss Norman) as an apprentice without effecting indetures. Mr. Gohns said the award did not allow any probationary period, Miss Norman being one of the apprentices concerned in tile previous case. Mr. Pryor contended that the custom of the trade was to have a probationary period for two or three months before indentures were signed, and that custom was necessary in the interests of employees, who often, after a few weeks work, found they did not like the trade.' Defendant, on oath, said that Miss Norman was a probationer in his employ. It was the custom to have a probationary period for apprentices. Miss Norman left his employ of her own accord. George Shierlaw, tailor, gave evidence that it was the custom of the trade to have a probationary period for apprentices. ■Mr. Gohns admitted the custom prevailed prior to the existence of the award. The Court said the custom relied upon was inconsistent with the award. Apprentices should be indentured, and if any fault were found afterwards they could be cancelled. A breach would be recorded; but no fine inflicted.

Tlio inspector of .Awards tlicn proceeded fugaitolb Messrs Rossbotham and iSuarlc on three offences. , Mr. Coleman appeared for respondents, and admitted the offences, when were breaches of the tuiloress’ award. The breaches consisted in employing apprentices as probationers before they were indentured, and were purely technical. The Court recorded breaches in all three cases, and imposed a line of £2 iu two cases only, or £1 in all. .Respondent to pay the .Court lees. Mr. S. Wootton, baker, was then charged with paying an employee less than the minimum wages. Mr. vl’ryor appeared for respondent, and admitted the broach. Mr. Colins said the whole of the shortage in wages hail been paid up. A line of £2 was imposed. Dixon Peach was then proceeded against for paying wages to a carpenter less than the minimum in the award. Mr. Cohns appeared lor the Labor Department, and Mr. Pryor for defendant. Mr. Pryor said the man had a permit to work for the wages' paid, but when sent int 0 the country had not ben paid the Is a.day extra, lib admitted a technical breach. - Mr. Cohns said the man was getting the town rate of payj hut not the country rate of pay. The Court said a breach had been committed, and respondent was lined £2, and 'the man Harding concerned in the case was lined 10s and costs. Peach was then charged with not paying the wages on days'required by the law. Mr. Pryor, for respondent, admitted the offence. Respondent was lined £3, and ordered to pay costs. The informations against the employees (Thehvall, Jones, and Harding) were withdrawn. Messrs Sheet Brothers were charged with failing to pay Is extra per day to carpenters working in the conutry. The men were engaged in Cisborno and sent to Wairoa anil the defendant asked the Court to decide whether Wairoa was in the Wellington or Cisborno industrial district. He did not ask for a penalty, and the facts wore admitted. Mr. Pryor said the question was a difficult one, and lie would like the Court to decide the point. The question 'was whether as the men wore engaged in Cisborne the local , award would apply in an outside dis- I trict.

'l'lic Court decided to adjourn consideration of the point until after the other business' had been dealt with. For paying a workman the wages allowed under a permit after the permit had expired, a breach was recorded against the same respondents. Mr. Williams admitted employing a journeyman named Dooley at less wages than under the carpenters’ award.

Mr. Gohns stated that respondent tried to get a permit for the mail to work at lower wages. Respondent admitted the facts, stating that when he found the man could not get a permit he discharged him.

Dooley was also charged with accepting the lower rate. He told the Court he was not now working at the trade. He intended to claim the hack wages from Mr. Williams. Mi-. Gohns said there had been irregularities right through the employment of Dooley, whilo ho was apprenticed to' Mr. Williams. Williams, was fined £2 and ordered to pay costs, and Dooley ordered to pay a like fine. The cases against E. Hall, C. Taylor, and N. Hoper were withdrawn. ’The Court then adjourned until 10 o’clock this morning.