Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

FLAXMILLERS’ AWARD.

ALLEGED BREACH OF THE PREFERENCE CLAUSE.

CASE ADJOURNED. At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, the Inspector of Awards (Mr Culver), proceeded against Abraham King of Foxton, flaxmiller, to recover the sum of for breach of the preference clause of the Flaxmillers’ Award by employing a non-unionist when a member of the Union was available. Mr Moore, who appeared for defendant, said that the facts of the case were that the defendant employed one Reaston Baker, to do the work of scutching at his mill on contract. Baker employed another man to assist him whowas not a member of the Union. Mr King was aware that there was a member of the Union willing to take the work, but he (Mr Moore) contended that the employment of an extra scutcher was not in Mr King’s hands as Baker had contracted to do the work at 28s per per ton (the award rate) and had the right to employ his own assistant. Further, on employing the unon-uionist Baker had informed him that it would be necessary for him to join the Union which he had agreed to do, as soon as he received his first pay, as he was unable to join at the time of his employment not having the necessary money to pay the entrance fee. This had since been done. Mr Moore referred to Mr Justice Sim’s recent decision in the matter of contracts and contended that according to that decision the defendant in this case was not under the Award as

the work of scutching had been let by contract. He called the defeudaui who stated that Baker had contracted to do the work of scutching at 28s per ton. Baker arranged for whatever assistance he required and paid himself. Defendant paid Baker the lull amount for the .scutching dune and had nothing to do with Baker’s men.

In answer to Mr Culver defendant said that there was no written contract.

Mr Culver contended that scutching was piecework and not contract.

The Magistrate said that if piecework were to be accepted as contract the Award would be o( very little use. He would have to consider the question. In order to allow witnesses to be called the Magistrate adjourned the case until next court day.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/MH19091007.2.16

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 491, 7 October 1909, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
378

FLAXMILLERS’ AWARD. Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 491, 7 October 1909, Page 3

FLAXMILLERS’ AWARD. Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 491, 7 October 1909, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert