ARBITRATION COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2814, 19 February 1908, Page 36

ARBITRATION COURT.

(Before his Honor Mr Justice Sim and Messrs W. Pryor and J. A. M'Cullough.)

The Arbitration Oourt resumed its sittings *t Dunedin on the 13th «t 10 o'clock, when his Honor Mr Justice Sirni delivered the blowing judgments: — THE JUBILEE COAL COMPANY (LTD.). In the present case it is alleged that the respondent has committed a breach, of the provisions of clause 1 of the Otagoi foal miners' award in connection with the baPot prescribed by that clause. Under that clause headings and levels should be btllotted for specially, and then the general ballot should be taken, the names of those thrown out of the special ballot being put in the general ballot. This procedure was not followed in the ballot which was held in tie respondent's mine in October las?. Pillars were ballotted for first, and only the names of 18 out of 25 miners were put in ithe ballot. Then a ballot for headings wae taken, and places in the mine were assigns.! to the miners in accoi dance with the resn-t of these two ballots. Th© union complained of the -way in which the- ballots had bf-on "t*kea, and Inspector Hally intervened. 'Another ballot for pillars was taken, but iv& same of one miner was inadvertently loft out of this, *nd another ballot was then taken, when the names of all the miners ware put in the ballot. It is now alleged that ithe respondent has comniitteed a breach of the •ward by not assigning places in accordance •with this last ballot. It appears to ua tint (Hub ballot was not taken in accordance wit.fi ithe award, because a ballot for pillars could not be taken until headings and levels has (been first ballotted for separately, as prescribed by the award. The ballot far headings was not properly taken, because +he names of eight miners, to whom pillars nad ibeen «ssigned by the previous ballot were deft out oi this ballot, and this ballot, therefore, cannot bz lelied on as a compliance with the award. Ta« result is that we hold •11 the ballots taken in October to have been improrrly taken, and the company cannot be held to have committed any breach of award by not having assigned places in Accordance wit'a these ballots, or any of them. Although the insi-ector has failed to establish the case Eet up by him. it was clear on tlie evidence that the respondent committed a breach of award by not taking the ballot in accordance with the provisions ci the award. We think that the application for enforcement should, bs amended ?o as to cover this case. We amend it accordingly and for tli's breach we impose a fine of £2, and order the respondent to pay the inspector's disbursements for fees of court. The failure of the respondent to carry out the ple<n directions af the award was the cause of f.ll the trouble that has arisen. It. was -tha duty of the respondent to put the names of all the miners into the first ballot, and to put into the general ballot the names of all those miners who had not secured places in the first ballot. If tie result of the_ ballots was to give to m ners places which, in the interests of safety it was ceeirsble they should not have, it was comjsetent for the mine manager, in exercise of the power given to him by ciai'-e 1 of »he award, to withdraw these men and renlr.ee them by more competent workmen. It is probable that a bona fide exercis? of this power would have enabled the nune manager io put the miners in the places which rhsv actually got, without involving the respondent in any breach of the provisions of the award

MALCOLM STEVENSON, DTJXEDIST.

The question in this case is whether the respondent was justified in making a deduction of 6s from the wages of certain carters ■who were employed by him at the wage prescribed by clause 1 of the Dunedin and suburban carters' award (Book of Awards, vol. «, p. 248)— viz., £2 6s per week. These carters did not work on Monday, the 14th of October, 1907, and if it was through their own default they did not work on that day, •then the deduction was justified. The 14th October was a veiy wet day. The m-en allege that they were ready and willing to •work, but that Mr Stevenson did not give them any instructions about work, and that consequently they remained idle a 1 that day. Mr Stevenson, on the other hand, says that when he went to the stable in the morning he told tbe men to yoke up their teams and go to the office for instructions, »nd th*t they did not do so. It was proved that other carters were carrying on their business on the day in question. It was •lso proved that Mt Stevenson haS plenty of work that could have been done on that day without any real inconvenience on account of the ram, and thmt owing partly to the volume of work in hand and partly to the loss of time on the 14th October Mr Steveneon had afterwards to employ outside teams to overtake all the work ir hand. It is obvious, therefore, that Mr Stevenson had no motive for suspending work on the 14th October, and, on the contrary, had every reason for pushing on vigorously with his •work on thatNlay. Having taken all the circumstances into consideration, we are satisfied that the reason why the carters did not work on that day was that they had made /op tbeir minds not to work. Pearce, one of •Mr Stevenson's carters, but who is. not concerned in the present case, J,o".d Mr Steveneon when he came into the stable on the morning of the 14th October that Tie would not go out. and would rather forfeit a day's pay The other carters would not admit that •they also had resolved not to go out, but we ere satisfied that they must have done so, end that it was through their own default rfJiat they did not work on that day. The "deduction made by Mr Stevenson was therefore justified, and the application for enforcement is dismissed. i HENDERSON AXD GRAY, MIL BURS", ' 'Xiie respondents are alleged to ha\e committed a breach of the Otago aguciltural and geneial labourers' award ißook of Awards, ■col. VI. p. 356) by employing James RovTey as a lime burner during September 1907, and for some time after that date and iai ing to pay him the minimum rate of wages prescribed by the award. At the date i«feiied to Rowley was 10 jears of age, and was certainly Lot a competent lime burner He was, however, engaged during the period in question in doing what is admittedly part oi a lime burner's v>-ork — name y, wheeling coal from the trucks to the kiln and assisting to spread in 01a the kiln. That, we think, is sufficient to constitute him a lime burner for the purposes of the award, and •tbe respondents were botmd to pay him the •weges iixed for that particular class of ■worker. A -worker, although not fully competent, who is -employed to do a material part of the work of any particu.ar callirg must be paid the wages fixed by the award fox Abat calling, unless he has obtained a permit to work for lees than the presci.bed wage. We he'd, therefore, that the respondents have committed a b:eacli of awaid , but the c?=e is net oi*e for a peralij. Wben c qvesti-on was 111-i.d b" th? union . b .it Row^ - i-c=i-ticr.. tl c mattci v.i*. i'"-.,j el 1 if I1 '' '« ,'ispccr* A'ai.'l -* \1 11 - 1 V - H< . 1-JII trnt bf I 1 01 . ; I' 1 . t- - >. '1 ' ' <■ TVlLtoi tiia »v,.ad. Ins iui ji*l g&> Liit ii

allowed to rest until September, 1607, when Inspector Caxxnody saw Mr Henderson, »nd suggested that Rowley should apply for an under-rate permit. It was agreed that this •hould be done, and an application was made to the stipendiary magistrate, but when the application came on for hearing Rowley refused to a-ccept a permit, and his employment by the respondents was terminated shortly afterwards. There was a reasonable doubt as to Rowley's position under the award, and the respondents were desirous, apparently, of doing what was right in th© matter. In view of all tie circumstances, the court has decided to record «• breach, and to order the- respondents to pay the inspector's disbursements for fees of court.

CHRISTIE BROS.

In these cases the respondents are alleged to have committed breaches of the Otago coal miners' award (Book of Awards, vol. 111, p. 835) The question in the first case is as to the construction of clause 2 of the award, which, under the head of piece rates, provides that dross shall be paid for at the sate of 4d per box. Some of the dross in the respondents' mine is removed for sale, and the respondents admit that they are liable to pay the miners for this dross. There is, however, very little demand for the dross from this mine, and a considerable quantity of it has to be removed and thrown to waste. When the miner who gets the dross is employed to put in boxes the respondents admit their liability to pay him for the dross, and it is only when the dross is put in boxes by other workers for the purpose of being thrown to waste that the respondents claim thaft the miner is not entitled to be paid anything in resipect of such dross. We think that if any dross is removed for ga-le or to be used for any purpose in the mine the miner wno gets it is .entitled to be paad for it, in accordance with the award, whethei or not h-» places it in the boxes. If, however, tho dross is removed merely for the purpoae of being thown to waste, it is competent for the respondents to employ a worker, other than the miner who gets the dross, to remove it, and in that case the miner is not entitled to be paid anything in respect of it The removal must, however, be carried out in such a way as not to interfere with the work of the miner at the face. The dross in th« present case was Temoved merely for the purpose of being thrown to waste end the respondents have therefore not committed any breach of award by not paying the miners for such Arose. In the second case the respondents are alleged to have committed a breach of a-wiard by employing a miner named Tweedie- to work ia. a aeadmg which had not been previously balloted for. A- ballot was taken on the 3Otb cf August. 1907, and all the places then m existence- m the mine were balloted, foi. Tweedie, the miner referred to, obtained a bord in the ballot. He worked in that up to the 14th or 15th of September, when he was taken out of the bord aaid put to work in a new heading, which it was thought advisable to make for the purpose of improving the ventilation of the mine. There were no miners without places when this was done, although there was one miner. James Miller, who had then less work to do m his bord than. Tweedie had in his. It is olea-r that this heading was not in existence when, the ballot was taken, and consequently could' net be balloted for. and we aie satisfied tkaifc it was started afterwaids with the bone fide intention of imiprovmg the ventilation of the mine, and not with the intention or idea of getting rid of the result of the ballot. There has, therefore, not been any breach of award, and the application in both oases are dismisted.

J. M'l/AREX AND OTHERS

The respondents in these cases admit that they have committed an offence under section 15 of " The Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1305," by taking part in a strike. The respondents are the carters referred to in the judgment in the case of the inspector of Awards v. Stevenson. When their w«ges were paid to them on October 19, a deduction of 6s was made from the pay of each because they had not worked on the previous Monday. When they came to Mr Stevenson's stable on Monday. October 21, they refused to start work unless Mr Stevenson agreed to pay them the 6s wMch had been deducted. He refused to o~ this, and invoked the "assistance of Inspector Hally, who interviewed the men and convinced theni they were wrong in refusing to work, and they thereupon started work m the ordinary way. The strike lasted less than two hours, and the men appear to have engaged in it w-ith-oust appreciating the effect of what they were doing. We do not regard the ina<tt«r as ft serious one, and we think that it will be sufficient to convict the respondents and order them to pay the inspector's disbursements for fees of court.