ALLEGED BREACH OF CARPENTERS’ AWARD.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2452, 17 March 1909, Page 5

ALLEGED BREACH OF CARPENTERS’ AWARD.

AN>INTERESTING DECISION. (Press Association.) WELLINGTON, March 16. An alleged breach of the Wellington carpenters ’award in the case of Lc Gren, Inspector of Awards, versus Humphries Bros,, builders, formed the subject of a reserved judgment delivered bv Dr. MacArtlnir, S.M., to-day. Plain-" tiff claimed £lO as a penalty. The defendants on the Ist October, 1908, it was stated -in the particulars of the case, employed as a carpenter or joiner, Bert Rogers, who was not a member of the Wellington branch of .the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners’ Industrial Union of Workers,, when members of the Union, who were equally qualified as Rogers, wereajsandy and willing to undertake the work required to be done. For the plaintiff the employment book wars produced, and it was shown that on the Ist October, 1908. five men had'signed the book as being out of employment on that date. They signed as carpenters and joiners. It was also shown by evidence on behalf of the plaintiff that a good joiner ought to be able to do ordinary stairwork, but that geometrical stair-easing was a special branch. One of the men who bad signed the book on that date, but who had signed only as a carpenter and joiner, stated that he had made staircases, but in cross-examination admitted that staircases required special skill, and that the ordinary carpenter and joiner in New Zealand did not do stairs. For the defence it was contended that staircase-building, was a separate branch and required special training. In the opinion of His Worship staircase-building was a branch by itself, requiring special training, this beng borne out by the fact that it was allowed, to be taken as piecework. - Two facts, stated His Worship, must be remembered. First, that the men did not enter their names as capable of doing staircase work, and, second, that the defendants did not consult the employment book before engaging, the nonunionist. In the circumstances of the case, Dr. MacArtlnir considered the defendants were justified in employing a non-unionist to do stair-building.. Judgment would bo for defendants, but their right to;costs was forfeited, as. they had not consulted the employment book; Defendants were represented by Mr. Rcaoocke.