ARBITRATION COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 47, 20 March 1909, Page 2

ARBITRATION COURT.

AN ADOPTED CHILD. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Friday. The Arbitration Court gave jiulg-1 momt to-day as t)o the position of an adopted daughter in itlie matter of her right 'to participate in compensation monies and the matter as to whether she. was entitled to bencii'ts under the Workers' Compensation for Accidents Act. The Court held that an adopted child was entitled to be treated as a dependent exactly as if born in wedto.«k.

PREFERENCE TO UNIONISTS. AN INTERESTING! PASSAGE. Wellington, Last Night. At the Arbitration Court to-day further evidence was taken in the case in which W. G. Parsons was charged with a breach of the preference clause of the carpenters' award. On the previous day Parsons had admitted employing certain workmen for special work. These men were not unionists, but reference to the union's employment book showed there were at the tone no competent unionists out of work. To-day Parsons said he had examined the hook I the day before employing the uicu in question.

Judge Sim said Parsons' evidence conflicted with that given previously,which was that he had examined the union's book the day after employing the men. ' ' A majority of the Court found that a- breach had occurred. Mr. S. llrown, employers' n'prcsentative, said his opinion was that no man should be convicted on the evidence of the employment book. The facts given therein were not sufficient to indicate where workmen could be found. The book should contain much fuller information, ami the secretary of the union should assist employers in the search for competent union men out of employment. Eurthcr evidence was taken in the

charge against Humphries Bros, of a breach of the preference clause of the carpenters' award. G. Humphries said 9iis brother, L. Humphries, at present in [England, had engaged the man in question. The ease was ordered to staud over till J,. Humphries returuvd. His Honor said it seemed to him to come b-ick to Hie same question, that employers might save themselves a great deal of trouble by declining to employ men until they had satisfied themselves that applicants were members of the union. Mr. Grcnfcll, who appeared for Humphries, said it placed an. unduly heavy burden on employers to ask them to search for unionists when competent men were waiting at their doors, not only in New Zealand but elsewhere. First-class workers did not require to be bolstered up by unions or have their rights maintained by them, and therefore declined to join unions. His Honor asked if Mr. Grenfell thought the workers would lie better oil' without unions. Mr. Grenfell said he believed they would. The workers had in the past ground for complaint, perhaps, but the great body of employers treated their i men fairly.

His Honor said that, if so, Wellington was a lortunate place, for human nature was different here from human nature in other parts of the world, if employers had reached that stage of perfection. Julius Adolphus butz, hotelkeepev, was convicted of a breach of the cooks' and waiters' award for employing a man as porter and not paying' him porters' wages. The defence'was that the man had not been engaged as a porter, hut as a rouseabout. No fine was indicted.

CASE AGAINST THE UNION S.S. COMPAXY. •Wellington, Last Night. In the case preferred bv the Wellimton section, of the Australian Federated Seamen's Industrial Union of Workers against the Union S.S. Co. for enforcement of award, reserved judgment was delivered 'by Dr. A. McArlhur, S..M. today. In statement it was set out that Win. Lindguist, aide seaman, was employed tus n day 'man on the Maori, and was required to work nine hours per day ,on six working days of the week, also to .perform certain work on Sundays. The company refused to pay overtime, for the excess of eight hour's worked on. the six days aforesaid, and also for the time worked on Sunday. The eoiunatiy admitted that the man was employed from G a.m. 'to 7 a.m. before tlie Maori arrived in port, and that he was engaged while in port during the hours of ]nbor for seamen h port from 7 a..m. to 5 p.m., with two hours for meals. He thus worked nine hours on rot days mid two hours on Sunday. The company relied on clauses <> and 8 of the award. The company contended that no overtime was paid while the ship was at sea, between the hours of ,1! a.m. ,and ii p.m., as (he Maoi-Mvas at sea, or rather not moored, until 7 a.m. The day man whose time' was not Jixed by the award came under Hie rule of hour* ifrom 0 a.m. to 5 ,p.m. A seaman on deck, in his Worship's opinion, was on watch, ami as a day man was admitted to be n .seaman oil deck he must -therefore be on watch. Surely deck hands were included a* day 'men. Every deck hand might not be «■ day man, but every dayman, as his .Worship understood ' the'position, was a duck hand. He considered that day men could not he asked to work beyond « a.m. and 5 p.m. without being reckoned as overtime, and, .consequently, (here was no 'fear of their being worked a.s indicated bv Mr. yoim.r Judgment mould be for defendant con!-1 pauy.