BREACH OF AN AWARD.

Taranaki Daily News, 4 November 1921, Page 5

BREACH OF AN AWARD.

UNUSUAL FEATURES. UNION SECRETARY FINED. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. A case of unusual interest was heard before Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M., to-day, in which Rowland T. Bailey, inspector of awards, applied for a penalty of £lOO to be imposed on Charles Grayndler, secretary of the Wellington Shearers* Union, in respect of a breach of the Wellington district shearers’ and shed hands’ award. Application was sought ■for the enforcement of the provisions of the award, which stated that neither the union not any member should do anything either directly or indirectly to prevent a person or induce a person to abstain from working under the conditions of an award of the Court of Arbitration, which provided that any breach of the provisions set out in the schedule constituted a breach of the award, and that a maximum penalty could be imposed of £lOO. Mr. P. J. O’Regan, who appeared for the defendant, admitted a breach of the award, but disputed the jurisdiction oi the court to impose a penalty exceeding £5. The court had been deprived, by an amendment of the Act, of power to inflict such a fine. The law provided that a union, association or employer was liable to a fine of £lOO for a breach of an award, but an individual worker was liable to a penalty not exceeding £5. Air. Bailey said he relied simply on the fact that the £lOO provision was contained in the award, and that anything the Arbitration Court did could not be questioned. His Worship remarked it was a deliberate breach of the award. Defendant made arrangements to prevent men going to work, and it was fortunate for him the penalty was so light. “If I had my way 1 would fine Mim more severely,” remarked Mr. Hunt, Judgment was given for plaintiff for £5, and witnesses fees amounting to £l2 3s 6d were ordered to be paid.