BOOTMAKING TRADE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2598, 4 September 1909, Page 3

BOOTMAKING TRADE.

AN IMPORTANT JUDGMENT.

TPeh Press Association.!: 1 WELLINGTON, September 3. An important judgment bearing on the bootmaking trade was delivered by Dr. A. McArthur, S.M., m the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. The Inspector of Awards (Mr A. W. Newton) claimed to recover £lO from R. Hannah and Co., Ltd, bootmakers, - as. a penalty for a breach of the New Zealand award dated 12th June last, refemale .operatives. The alleged breach was that the defendant company employed during June and July Rebecca Bates, Ada Price, and Violet Sanders at 25s per week, arid Eva Gibson at 22s 6d per week as boot operatives, instead of at 27s 6d per week, as required by the award. The Inspector also claimed to recover £lO as a penalty for another breach of the same award. It was alleged that defendant company during June and July paid weekly wages to female operatives at 5 p.m. on Tuesday in each week, the wages being for a period ending the previous (Saturday at noon, thus, retaining two days’ pav in hand, contrary to the award. 'The first breach was alleged to be against the provisions of clause S (a) of the award, which is as follows: “Except where otherwise specified the minimum wage for females working at- the boot and shoe industry, and having served five years and upward*., shall be £1 7s 6d per week, computed by the hour.” All the facts of the case were admitted, arid no evidence was called, counsel for the defence relying, the Magistrate said, on a legal ground that the words “having served five years and upwards” referred exclusively to New Zealand, and that therefore service o'utside of New Zealand could not count. The operatives concerned had put their service in in England, and counsel contended they were riot entitled to the benefits under clause 8 (a) of the award. I)r McArthur remarked that the question to be decided in the case was: Must tlie full five years be served in New Zealand? < Counsel for the defence said yes, and quoted a case in support of his contention. ... After dealing with this case the Magistrate said that were counsel’s argument to prevail there would bo nothing to prevent, as far as the awards an! all similar awards were concerned, the defendant company from introducing any number of operatives, and employing them in New Zealand for five years at less than the minimum wage as settled by the award.,“This alone,” remarked Dr McArthur, “I consider a sufficient answer to the argument of counsel. As the award is a very recent one, and the award rates are now; being paid, I think that a penalty of £2 will meet the case.” Tlie second breach was admitted, and for the reason that the award is now being complied with a penalty of £1 only was inflicted.