ARBITRATION COURT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 9062, 10 April 1908, Page 5

ARBITRATION COURT.

SITTING AT MASTERTON,

A sitting of the Arbitration Court J was held at Masterton yesterday, His Honour Judge Sim presiding, Messrs S. Brown and J. W. McCulloch being also on the Bench. CLAIM FOR ACCIDENT AWARD. Charles Madden, of Masterton, applied for an order against A. Kirk, butcher, of Kopuaranga, on account of a disablement sustained by plaintiff while in defendant's employ. Mr P. L. Hollings appeared for plaintiff, and said the injury —a dislocated shoulder—was likely to be permanent. Some discussion ensued as to payment of a lump sum. Defendant stated that plaintiff was insured, and as the insurance I company was not represented an order was made for payment of £1 per week from date of accident (January 2nd) to the present time, and, if a lump sum is not accepted, until the incapacity ceases or a further award is made. Costs were allowed plaintiff to the amount of £3 3s, and one witness' expenses. BREACHES OF AWARDS.

Inspector of Awards v. P. Hamill. — Breaches of Tailors' and Tailoresses' Awards. The Inspector of Factories (Mr Hood) appeared for the Department, and Mr C. A. Pownall for defendant. Mr Pownall admitted the breaches (two) with which defendant was charged, but said defendant was away from his business at the time the breaches occurred, and one was a trivial offence consisting of omitting to raise an employee's wages, the time overdue being only a matter of four days. The Inspector pointed out that the period of the breach referred to was much larger, being about three months, the whole period of the emloyees' (a tailoress) engagement.

Mr Pownal! said that if that was so the charge had been set out rather inexplicitly. However, the breach was quite unintentional. The second breach, counsel contended, was a highly technical one, and consisted in selling suits as tailor-made which while being physically 'nade on the premises were not technically so, because the defendant leased his workroom to a person named Carrick, who rrade the suits by proper tailor labour. In the first case a fine of £3 was imposed, and a breach recorded only in the latter, His Honour considering that the mischief the award aimed at preventing was not caused. Inspector of Awards v. H. Fisher and Son. This was a chage of failing to give a hand "dry" pay, paying a hand instead £1 15s per week and boarding him for 15s per week. ''Mr W. M. Easthope, Secretary to the Employers' Association,, appeared for defendant, and admitted the breach. He called one of the defendants to explain the circumstances.

I H. Fisher, defendant, said he was labouring under a mistake in doing as he had done/ He had understood he could board the hand. Mr Easthope said that the employee had misread the award, and had inadvertently misled Mr Fisher. Now the position was that instead having £1 15s a week above his wages, he only had £1 10s, as defendant only charged him 15s per week, and he now had to pay £1 for board. The Inspector asked that the employee, who was charged also with a breach, be charged jointly. This was agreed to. . Archibald Glen, defendant employee, admitted misreading the award and committing a breach of itDefendant Fisher was fined £2 and costs, and Glen 10s and costs. Inspector of Awards v. J. Donaldson, of Pahiatua. Defendant, who was charged with employing a carter on several occasions in!th3 bakehouse, did not appear, the Inspector stating that defendant had admitted to him having committed tho breaches, stating that he had a man away ill, and was pushed for work. Defendant had previously appeared before the Court for a breach of a different nature. A fine of £5 was imposed. Pispector of Awards v. A. C. Bicknell, of Greytown, Master Builder.

Defendant was charged with three breaches of the Union award, two in . paying less than the specified rate of wages, and one for failing to indenture a lad in his employ. Defendant, in defence, said he was certainly guilty of a technical breach, but the employees had been far more generously treated than they would have been had he adhered to the award. Defendant was fined £lO, to cover all the breaches and costs. Three employees, Chas. Maxton, W. Thompson, and W. Barton, then appeared to answer cnarges of accepting less than the award rate. Each admitted the offence, and pleaded ignorance of the award. They stated that their experience in the trade had all been gained under Mr Bicknell. The Inspector said that if the men were, as alleged, under rate workers they should have worked under permits. A fine of 10s and costs was imposed on each defendant. I Inspector of Awards v. W. C. Sayer. | This was a charge of failing to pay less than the award rate to an , J employee. Defendant, a carpenter, admitted the offence, stating he did not intend to ignore the award, and endeavoured unsuccessfully to get the lad apprenticed. A fine of .£3 and costs was imposed. Inspector of Awards v. J. W. Carter. This was a breach of the bakers' award, defendant admitting the charge of failing to indenture a lad in his employ, but said the delay was caused through the lad not hurrying about making up his mind. A fine of £3 and costs was in;- i posed.

BAKERS' DISPUTE,

Evidence was then taken in the above dispute. Mr W. H. Westbrooke appeared for the Union, and Mr W. M. Easthope for the employers. ; The claims regarding wages were that Doard hands' wages should be increased from £2 5s to £2 10s; second hands from £2 10s to £3, and the first hand from £3 to £3 ss. Representatives on each side stated that all the claims had been agreed to except the wages demands, and the clause in reference to boarding out. Mr Easthope said that the employers considered a five-mile radius was ample, as a bakery might be. established in an isolated position, and no boarding establishment might be within that distance. The employers asked that the wages remain as they are. J. S. J. Alpass, of Masterton, trading as Alpass and Co., said that if the wages were increased as asked by the Union, the business could not afford it under present conditions. The area of delivery in Masterton was much larger than in the cities, the difference being nearly twice in favour of the cities in regard to expense under this head. Being the only baker in the Valley to employ full hand labour, witness considered he was in a position to say Miat if other businesses in the Valley were run by hired hands instead of by the proprietors themseves, they would berun at a loss if the increase were given. Witness handed His Honour a oalance sheet showing the profit and

loss account for the past year's working, in support of his contentions that an increase would render the business unpayable. By Mr Westbrooke: The calculations of increase under the'proposed, rise in wages £2 16s per" weekwere based on the decrease in hours and the reckoning in of a foreman's and second hand's increase of pay. This was the only evidence cal'ed by the employers. J. J. Maloney, foreman baker, said he was receiving £3 per week from his employer, J. H. Colquhoun, of Greytown. Th 3 business output was about 1300, per week. Witness had a good deal of small goods work.

This closed the evidence for the Union.

Mr Westbrooke then reviewed the evidence taken by the Court throughout the country districts. He denied the assertion that there was really no dispute, as the employees had been forced in their present posi-

tion. The position regarding hours was that under the Factories Act a small goods baker could not work more than 48 hours per week without overtime, while bakers worked their eight hours and then put in two or three hours at small goods. The speaker then referred to the adverse and diverse conditions prevailing in different pares of the country regarding hours and methods, and summed up the evidence submitted in Wellington in regard to production under city conditions. He did not believe that there was a bakehouse in the country where board could not be obtained within a suitable distance from the business. After Mr Westbrooke's address the Court adjourned, the business having concluded.