THE CARPENTERS’ AWARD.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2483, 23 April 1909, Page 4

THE CARPENTERS’ AWARD.

AX EMPLOYER FIXED. At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning, before Mr. TV. A. Barton, S.M., the case, of the Inspector of Factories v. John Somervell, in which defendant was, a fortnight ago, fined ±;2Q for employing non-unionists, when, there were union carpenters out ’ of employment, was again called on. After the previous hearing, when defendant did not appear. Mr. Kirk made . application for the case to bo re-opened and his request was granted. When the case was called yesterday, Mr. Kirk appeared for the defendant, and explained that the non-appearance of defendant on the first day was netwilful, but the result of an oversight. Counsel went on t-o explain that one of the men did go to the job in question, but on saying tl;q,t he was not a unioi*-,, ist, was refused work. On the '.<iy that the Inspector came the man also arrived, having been sent to the work by defendant’s son. Defendant had then perhaps, been neglectful, but ho considered that the man had in themeantime become a member of theUnion and thus qualified himself for employment. The Inspector said that he had noreason to doubt what counsel .for the defendant had said was correct. He was, however, of the opinion that the day was long past- when carelessness could be accepted as an excuse. He did not wish To press for a heavy penalty, but he would like to say that he had also cautioned defendant’s son in the same matter. His Worship said that in ail the circumstances, especially as he knew slr. Somervell to be a most uprightman, who would not wilfully break the law. he would inflict a penalty of £2' 10s iu each case. It- must be remembered, however, that- any future cases would be dealt with in a different manner. PAYMENT BY CHEQUE. The Inspector of Awards further proceeded against Walter Clayton for having made payment to two of his employees by cheque instead of cash. Defendant pleaded guilty to' the charge, but explained that he had given the cheques expressly at the requestof his men. His Worship said that that was really no excuse, as defendant should have .refused to do it, knowing that it was a breach of the award. He (His Worship) thought that the prevision of the Arbitration Court was a wise one. as it prevented a number of men who might receive their cheques after the banks had closed from going to the Jfeotols to get them cashed. The Inspector said that he did not- r wish to press for a heavy penalty. A fine, of £T in oac-h case was inflicted.