ARBITRATION COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LI, Issue 95, 10 April 1908, Page 2

ARBITRATION COURT.

MEAOIIEB OF AWARDS.

Per Press Association. I Wellington, Last Sight. The Clerk of Awards to-day read four reserved judgments of the Arbitration Court respecting alleged breaches ot i •iwirds The first decision related w 'the Inspector of Awards v. WuihMl Bros., Ltd., the New Zealand Tunes Co., Ltd., and the Wellington Publishing C 0... Ltd His Honor Mr- Justice Sun, m the'course of his judgment, said these rises were heard together and the same question was involved in e.eh case oh to the construction of clause 3 of the \\ ellington typographical award m connection with machines. Clause 3 provided that ,„iv operator or apprentice required to work on Christmas Day or Good Friday should be paid double rates, and if required to work on New Yew's Day and

Labor Day'should be paid at time and ii-half rates, ami a corresponding rate

fur piece work:. The respondents employed their linotype operators at the weekly wage described by clause i of the award. They were, required" t<> work and did work on L i.lior Day, hut were only paid half-time in addition to their wee"klv wage! for the work done on Labor Day'. The question which the court had to determine was whether an operator was not entitled to be paid at X rate of time and a-half for this work in addition to the weekly wage. The Court held that lie was. To hold otherwise and accept the construction which the respondents invited the Court to put on the clause would lead to this

result: An operator who is a week y wage hand is entitled to be pud his fill wage without doing any work on Laboi Dav and if he works on Labor Day u«

would be paid for the work done on thai dav one-half only of the wage winch h< is 'paid for work done on other days The construction contended for by tn<

respondents would also produce a remarkable difference between the rate 0 be paid to weekly hands and piece-work, cvs for work done oil Labor Day. A niece-worker was not.entitled to be paid in respect of holidays save for work done on such holidays. A piece-work-er was entitled therefore to be paid in terms of the award ,at a rate corresponding to time and a-half, but according to the respondents' construction a weekly hand was only entitled to be pi id it the rate of half-time, in addition to Ins weekly wage; in other words, a pieceworke'r was entitled to be paid at least three times as much as a weekly hand for the very same work when it was done on Labor Day. It appeared to the Court that a construction which provided such results as those could not be the proper construction to be put on the language of the award, and any custom to°pay in accordance with such a construction was inconsistent with the provisions of an award. The Court held therefore that the respondents had committed a breach of the award by paying the workers in question at the rale oi half-time only in addition to their weekly wage for work done on Labor Day, but as the cases had been brought - M have the question settled it did not nn-

pose any penalty. Inspector of Awards v. Luke Mounter. —The respondent was engaged by itami E. Tiugey and Co., Ltd., as a signwriter and glass-embosser for two years from the 27th. of May, 1007, and he had been working for the company mnco that date. In June, 1907, the Court made an award in connection with the painting trade, including a provision which embodied an agreement made by the parties, giving preference to unionists, and providing that all journeymen •at present working for any employer iiiul who are not members of the workers' union should become members, within two weeks from the timtf of tlifs award coming into operation. The respondent had refused to join the union, and the proceedings were brought to enforce the provisions of the award. The Court held that the respondent had committed a breach by refusing to join the union, but it did not propose to imHOse any penalty at present. If the respondent within fourteen days from the date of the judgment (Btli April) did all that was necessary on his. pari lo liecome a member of the union a breach would be recorded. If he failed to do So the Court would consider what penalty should be imposed and the further consideration of the case was adjourned to the nest regular sitting of the Court in Wellington. Inspector of Awards v. Arthur 11. Cuitanach.—This ease was similar to Hie last; and tko Couj-t madu uiJ ordeij m, like terms. Tiie Wellington Amalgamated Society of Painters' and Decorators' Industrial Union of Workers v. Standidgo and Co. —in this case liie respondents w|ere Alleged to have committed a breach <(~ the award by paying less ,Miun. ith'c award rate of wages. The Court held that a breach had been committal and imposed a penalty of £u to be paid to the Union ,and £3 3s costs wi in, i d-is-Ijurseiuents, and witnesses' expenses to be lixed by the Clerk of Awards. THE BOARD'S ITINERARY. Wellington, Lust Isigul. Tlie Arbitration Court went to Muslerion this morning to hold a brief silting there. Jl is txj sit at Auckland on 28th April, and at Gisbornc on 2Uth May. The Conciliation Hoard oil Saturday proceed to Wangauui to consider the general laborers' dispute. On Monday the Board will consider the same,subject at ralmerstou North on 14th iust. and return to Wellington on 10th iust. After the Easter holidays they proceed to Mastertou and Napier. MASTERTON SITTING. Masterton, Last Might. A sitting of the Arbitration Court was held to-day. Charles Madden applied for an order against A. Kirk, butcher, Kapuaranga, on account of a disablement sustained by plaintiff while in defendant's employ. An order was made for payment of one pound per week from tlie time of the accident), January i, to the present time, and (if/a lump sum were not accepted) until the incapacity ceases, or a further award is made. For breaches of awards P. Hamill, tailor, was lined £3; H. Fisher and Son were .lined £2, and A. Glen, an employee of the firm, 10S; J. Donaldson was fined £5 for a breach of the bakers? award; A. C. Bicknell, builder, was fined £10; W. O. Sayer was fined £3; three employees, (J. Maxton, W. Thompson, and VV. Barton, were fined 10s each and cost for accepting less than the award rate of wages,