WHAT IS A FOREMAN ?

Auckland Star, Volume XLI, Issue 88, 14 April 1910, Page 2

WHAT IS A FOREMAN ?

ARBITRATION COURT FINDING. IMPORTANT TO R.AKKRS. , j A moot point in connection with the i baking trade was discussed this raorn- ! ing at the .Magistrate's Court before Mr. (.. C. Kettle. The case was one in which the Bakers' Union sought to recover from T. Moorcraft and Son, lakers, the sum oi £10 for a breach of the award in paving an employee named I George Arthur journeyman's wages inJ stead of a foreman's. The offence was j alleged to have extended over a period lof six months. This case is of consider- . j able importance to the trade, as the ! decision affects a large number. After ■j he heard the evidence at the original J trial, the Magistrate stated a case to , j the Arbitration Court for a definition jas to a foreman, and decision in the 11 matter was dsXerred pending the receipt .■ of this opinion. I According to the case stated, defend-1 ! ants on October Hi. 1908. dismissed their , j foreman, wishing to reduce expenses, , and as an employee named Arthur refused the position of foreman, Thomas ■ !Mooreraft assumed the duties himself. Jioorcraft made the yeast, set the ferments, and gave general instructions to the second and third hands as to what ivas to be done when he (Jloorcraftj J was absent from the bajjetrouse. In j January, 1909, Arthur, who had been J third hand, was promoted to be second i hand. From 1 a.m. to 6.30 a.m. Moor- . j craft did not go to the bakehouse, and J left .Arthur during those hours to supervise the baking operations and carry ■ out his CMooreraftV, orders and mstrucJ tioiL» previously given. Aloorcraft took I upon himself ail the responsibilities j which usually devolved upon a foreman, and only held Arthur responsible as I second hand. The question the Court was asked was: "Are dufendania bound j to pay Arthur wages payable to a fore- ! man under the award?" I The Court held: "Unless the defend-' j ant was jusuiied in treating himself as : foreman, he was bound to pay Arthur j the wages of foreman, if (1) he is a ; competent breadmaker, and (2) he i does the work usually done by the fore-, : mau in a bakehouse. It is not sufficient. j lor an employer to call hiinseif a forei man and to say that he accepts the , responsibilities of that position. He ; mu.~t be capable of doiug die work of a foreman. ami must actually- do a ! foreman's work before he em be treated <as a foreman. It is impossible tor thia Court to determine on the facts as statled whether the deiendant can properly J be treated as a foreman, and the ilagisj traie will have to determine the question himself on the evidence before him." > Mr. A, K. Stelton appeared for the I Union, and Mr. Stanton for the defendants. The former contended that it was clear that the foreman must actually do the work, and be present during the operations af baking. Mr. Stantou argued that the foreman could delegate certain portions of his work, and held tliat the essential part of the foreman's work was accepting responsibility. Originally, alter hearing the whole of the evidence, bis Worship said, in giving judgment he had very grave doubts as to the true position on the evidence, and he therefore stated a case for the opinion of the Arbitration Court. He saw no reason to alter the conclusions of fact which were stated in that case. He was of opinion that the doubt he had in his mind, and might still have, had been settled for him by the Arbitration Court, and he must bow to its decision. It was clear on the evidence that between 1 ajn. and ti.3o n.m. Moorcraft did not work in the .bakehouse, and if he had been an ordinary foreman employed in that business, he woukLhave been.expected to have been at the bakehouse between these hours doing the work of a foreman. Hoorcraf t delegated to his second hand, Arthur, the whole of the baking operations during these houw. The Arbitration Court said that before a man might be treated as a foreman he must actually do the work of a foreman. Thai was the point about which the magistrate was doubtful—whether the defendant could not give directions and orders, and leave them to be carried «ut by the men. The Court held that not only must a man be capable of doing foreman's workbut must actually do the work. His Worship could not go behind that decision. On that opinion, he was bound to convict the defendant, .because the second, hand did the foreman's work between the hours of 1 a.m. and 6.30 a.m. It was not as though this had occurred on an odd occasion. Had that been 30, the case could not have been treated as a' breach of the award. The practice was systematic. After the foreman was discharged, Moorcraft elected to take on the work of foreman, and was eontinuj oosly and consistently absent from tlie i bakehouse, so that Arthur was really the j foreman. The defendants must be" con- | victed, but, as the point was a new one j and involved a difficulty, it was not a case for a substantial penalty. Defendant I was fined twenty shillings and costs.