ARBITRATION COURT.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIII, Issue 9098, 19 March 1908, Page 4

ARBITRATION COURT.

Press Association

Wellington, March_l7. The Arbitration Court continued its sittings to-day. Fines were imposed as follows in connection with breaches of the carpenters’ and joiners’ award :—Howie and Matthews, for employing an unindentured apprentice, £2 and costs (it was shown that the lad. though not properly indentured, had been paid more than the award rate); R. Wakelin and Sons, similarly charged, £2 and cost. A. Wilkening, for employing a man at under rate wage.s without a permit, £5. J. W. Chapman, a tailor, employing a youth for a longer period of; probation than provided for without; being duly apprenticed, £2-and costs.. The executors of Hart Udy, similarly charged, £2 and costs. H. Young, employing a man without a permit at less than the award,, rate, £5 and costs. The workman concerned was fined 10s for failing to have a permit, H. Crump, employing an apprentice not duly indentured, £3 and costs.

E. S. Knight, failing to allow a discharged employee two hours to> put his tools in order, £l. Respondent said he had paid wage’ in lieu of notice.

C. Smith was charged with breach of the tailors’ award in connection with the provisions relating to bespoke work. A suit had been made from chart measures and sent to the house of the owner. The purchaser tried it on, sent it back, subsequently called for it, and tried it on (it was not altered in any way), and paid for it. The point at issue was whether a hfeech had been committed: where a suit had been actually delivered and the purchaser returned itr, for alterations would then be regarded as a “fit on’’? The Court-, held that a braech had been established, and that the suit came underthe definiton of bespoke work. A, fine of £5 was inflicted. The New Zealand Times Co., was charged with employing certain feeders at “making ready’’ on jobs, contrary to the provisions of the typographical award, and was fined £3 and costs. O. M. Banks and Co., similarly charged in respect to the letterpress machinists award, were fined £5 and costs. H. D. Crawford, for failing to observe the preference clause of the general labourers’ award, was fined. £3 and costs.