THE PAINTERS’ AWARD.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9364, 5 February 1909, Page 6

THE PAINTERS’ AWARD.

CHARGE AGAINST AJPRIEST. POSITION' CP PRIVATE EMPLOVERS:' • ’ •'

‘Per Press Association. , ■ 5 ■ [Napier* February 3. ti A> batch of cases- unde? the,lndue--.trial Conciliation . and . Arbitration. Amendment Act were' beard this-, morning before Mr S. -Bi M’Oartby, S.M:; when five 1 employers,.; were chargee?;with. breaches of tbeJ.Arbi.tration ;Oourt’sTi awards.' One of the cases was distinctly novel/' ’’Father Ooggan;~ the 1 Oatholioe priest--here. Was charged; with committing'; a breach of the . Napier, Painters’ and Decorators’. Award in ' employing John Connell/ an apprentice, On October 2nd, without- first employing a journeyman-as.>required by>the said award, and also on the same .date with employing,,_Johh/ Connell, an. apprentice, without first having him duly inderituirid. ii...Mr*B. J. Dolan appeared for thp defendant, who denied the breach. Mr GohcS; Labour Inspector j said that’’ defendant '"'instructed -Connell,, his house boy j to do some painting at, the new Catholic Infants’ r SchooL .The .secretary of, the Painters’ Union approached the 1 defendant, and pointed ; 6ut that the boy was not-ap-prenticed., . The . defendant refused to apprentice.thej boy, or allow, him to join the union, but said he Would fight the' matter. The : base was‘then takes up by the Department. ■ -Evidence was, given i by. ; Obarles M’Kenzle, secretary of the. Painters’ Union, and John Connell. The latter deposed that :he‘ worked for the defendant in various- ways; and executed the painting of the school.. He Was not a painter by,trade and never had any intention of' joining a. union. 1- '" _

1 Mr Dolan said the facts of the case were that the-boy: was, an.orphan, and was taken in. hand, by Bather Qoggan, who, employed him at the rate of 3i9s a week. Father Gdggan had a good deal of painting work done in: the. > sohpplj grounds by contract, but, as!. a practical man, he, assisted by the boy, executed 'some of the painting of- the"-ribhboL r ‘An •unsuccessful contractor forthe painting stirred up; the union .tp have Father, Goggan prosecuted., Under the award an apprentice Was alibWed three months’ probatibn before being indentured. In this case the defendant .wouldhave had. to indenture theboy for five years in order .to, do a little painting. He (Mr' 1 Dolan) contended that'the a Ward should be oonstrnoted so than the probation could*;be ; : allowed. :i in eases of this kind.. In the award ,th.e' definition of employer was restricted to'peisons employed in trade or business; and tfae< defendant was ; not in either, though the Apt extpndpd the Award engaged ih o the industry sribsefinerit' to the date of the award. Such employees shduldjreoeive 'notice under the Act in order to bindrtbem. The defepdant w%s charged with (a) . employing., a boy np.t, haying 1 ' first indent bred him,' krid ‘(h) ■‘employing ah apprentice without first- ‘’employing a journeyman. , -■ .. . -The statepaeuts,- Mr polan contended, Were, mutually destructive, since the de’fendbnt could riot' have employed an ■apprentice u if the’boy had übFbeeir actually" apprenticed by .indenture#. was| ,;the first prosecution of a private employer in Napier, and hepointed out that the award was advertised. Mi?; Qqbns. said,the ..preotiop of the unions ,was to Int.eryiew private employers who abased the'award, arid, if satisfaction was’not obtained, the matter Was-plac'edjinr tiie.vhands of the Department.: This was exactly what happened in, the present, case. The ,case was brought tb clear rip the pbsi tidri Of' a private employer in regard to Arbitration; Court awards, and if. ,the prosecution were , successful oh the first poind, the second would bg^yith'dra^ny.!. His Worship said the effect of the case i ; ,WaS so/fair : rdaohirig ,that be would take time to consider his judgment”. r- ,