INDUSTRIAL AWARDS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2479, 19 April 1909, Page 7

INDUSTRIAL AWARDS.

MAGISTRATE’S JUDGMENTS

Reserved judgments were delivered toy Dr. McArthur, S.M., at Wellington, in the ease of alleged breaches of industrial awards. In the case of the Inspector of Awards v. Staples and C 0.," plaintiff claimed to recover £lO as a penalty for alleged broach of the Welju lington Painter’s award. Defendants employed Jas. MsMillan as a painter and paid his 50s per week of 45 hours, instead of Is 3d per hour as required by the painter’s award. McMillan was a regular hand employed as malstor’s laborer at a constant wage of 50s a week. He was engaged off and on during the slack season doing odd jobs of painting. His Worship considered the defendants were quite justified in em-_ ploying McMillan as they did. They had committed no breach. A suit was brought by the Inspector! of Awards against the Wellington Gas Company. Plaintiff claimed to recover £lO for alleged breach of the building trades’ laborers’ award. The company employed as building trade laborers two men who were not members of the Union when certain members of the Union were available. “This is an award,” said his Worship, “in which prference is givon to Unionists. The two men put on were in the employment of the defendant company as stokers, and were members of the Stokers Union. The men were engaged 111 erecting a small brick building in the defendant company’s works, and the men-were put on as laborers without applying for a transfer. I cannot forget that both men employed were members of another union. Still it wag the duty the defendant company to have secured transfers. The request of the defendant company that the -action be dismissed as trivial cannot be complied with. I think a nominal penalty of £2 and costs will meet the circumstances. The Wellington Seamen’s Union claimed from the Wellington, Havelock and Motueka Steamship Company £lO as a penalty for alleged breach of award. Charles. Grant, ordinary seaman of the s;s. Manaroa was employed in performing the duties of lamp trimmer on the vessel at a monthly wage of £4 10, alleged to be contrary to the award, which provides that lamp trimmers X shall be paid a monthly wage of £7. The magistrate said the Manaroa carried one A.B. in excess of the required number. “Clause 2 of the award, said His Worship, “regulates the wages, and says ‘lamp) trimmers and A.B. shall be paid £8 and lamp trimmers £7.’ I take this to mean that if a lamp trimmer is also an A.B. he shall get £B, and that if he is a lamp trimmer pure and simple he shall get £7. Grant does not come under either denomination. He is not an A.B, and it would be absurd to call him a lamp trimmer pure and simple on a small steamer of 78 tons. Moreover, he worked oil a dav system not watch and watch, and did liis lamps os part of the day’s work, , just as toe did brass and other work allotted to him. I cannot see that defendant company has-been guilty of a breach of the award.