ARBITRATION COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 5, 30 June 1911, Page 8

ARBITRATION COURT.

Wellington sittings. By Telegraph.—Preas AaseciatVion. Wellington, Last Night. The Arbitration Court continued its session here to-day. In the carpenters' dispute, which was commenced yesterday, Mr. Orenfell, representing the employers, opposed the men's demands. He said it was a. general complaint among men that work was not constant; yet now they sought to further limit their earning opportunities. A week of five days would be a calamity to the men. He .said apprentices were inclined to malinger, knowing employers had no power to deduct pay for time lost. In regard to preference, employers had been delayed repeatedly through having to run to the union ofh'ee to examine the Employment Book before taking a man on. The president said there were only 30 or 40 non-unionists in the trade. Anyone who said, under these circumstances, that getting union men involved delay, nr.i«t be drawing on his imagination. Mr. Orenfell said employers suggested a clause which would require observance of preference when unionists and nonunionists presented themselves for employment at the same time. Evidence having been taken, the court intimated that at would take time to consider its decision. The Conciliation Board stated a case for the ruling of the Court, as to whether masters and mates of vessels can apply to the Court as one body for an award or must make separate application. After hearing argument by Mr. Weston for the shipowners, and Mr. Herdman for the Merchant Service Guild, the Court reserved its. decision. Alfred Abraham Bate, a laborer. . claimed £SB6 from Joseph Neal, contractor, as compensation for injuries through falling down the hold of the steamer Rimutaka, suffering injuries to his head and neck and internal injuries, as a result of which he now suffered from neurasthenia. The question in dispute was the extent of claimant's injuries. After hearing evidence the Court assumed that Hates' incapacity would continue for two years, and awarded a lump sum of £2OO in addition to the £7'2 already paid in weekly payments, with costs (£7 7s) and disbursements. CORONATION HOLIDAYS. THE AFTERMATH. LABOR DEPARTMENT v. GROCER. Wellington, Last Night. At the Arbitration Court to-day the i-Ahor Department proceeded against Messrs. Wardell Bros., grocers, of Wellington, for alleged breach of the grocers' award, in respect to holiday overtime payment, having siven their «mployces a holiday on King's Birthday (June 3). The master grocers did not pay them overtime for work done on the afternoon of Wednesday, May 31, which under ordinary circumstances would have been obserred as the statutory halfholiday.

Owing to a difference of opinion as to the construction to be placed on the provision for holidays, the Department, .irougnt a test action against Messrs. Wardell Bros., who were charged with having failed to pay their assistants overtime rates for working on the statutory half-holiday. Mr. M. Bolland appeared for the Department, and Mr. T. S. Weston for the employers. His Honor asked if the Department was not going to 'be represented by counsel. Mr. Bolland said the Department considered the question such a plain one that they did not deem it necessary to employ counsel.

His- Honor: "It might turn out anything but plain. It is not fair to ask the inspector to come here and argue at all."

Mr. Bolland said he did not intend to argue, out merely to draw the attention of the Court to the award. It would likely be brought forward that it had been the custom in the trade to work the employees on the half-day when the general holiday occurred in the same week, and not pay them for it. Mr. Weston said the position wasi that the grocers' assistants had. been in'the habit, when one of the holidays granted by the award took place, of working on the weekly half-holiday, or, in other words, to follow the Act. Under the Shops and Offices Act, if the general holiday was observed, the workers were not entitled to the usual halfholiday, ami it was not observed during that week. The whole thin" turned on the meaning of the words "statutory half-holiday." Tn the award the custom had iieen to follow the Act. The custom since 1002 had been to read the provisions of the award as allowing the employer lo work the ordinary weekly half-holiday. Under thi! Shops' and Offices Act. when a general holiday occurred in any particular week, the employer was entitled in exact o2 hours' ' work from the emplivoos. Mr. Bolland said ttuif, under the award the employers had tn arrange the workon four dnvs of tin "<>o|< between 8 a.m and (i p.m.. and <»i the half-holiday between S a.m. iml 1 p.m. If the defendant committed lln y breach of the award >t was liy not fixing the hours in accordance with clause 1 of the award. / ' His Honor said flic Court would take ' time to consider it.s decision. I