NOMINAL PENALTY.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVIII, Issue 267, 10 November 1937, Page 18

NOMINAL PENALTY.

BREACHES OF AWARD.

MEN ON RATIONED WORK.

CASE AGAINST COMPANY.

(By Telegraph.—Press Association.) DUNEDIN, Tuesday. A purely nominal penalty of 1/ in each case was imposed by Mr. J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court this morning, when be gave reserved judgment in the proceedings against Smith and Smith, Limited, for breaches of a.n award. The case was one in which the inspector of awards claimed a [wnaltv against Smith and Smith, Limited, stating that two men employed had been placed on rationed work, which me.a.nfc that they had a week off, for wliich they were not paid. The Department held that regular weekly payments must be made until the men were dismissed. Mr. 0. (!. Stevens, for the defendants, said the case, was of great importance to the whole industrial community, for it meant that when work fell off employers could not place men on a rationed scheme, in which case many breaches must have been committed. In the present case, when work fell off the men were divided into three batches and employed in sequence. There was no complaint from the men nor any illfeeling. * Counsel claimed that there was no provision in the award for continuousl work beyond the weekly period, and the award recognises suspension without dismissal. j The majristrate said that owing to slackness the company was faeed with the alternatives of dismissing iiands or rationing work, and the works manager, after k discussion with a leading hand who was on the union executive, decided on a rationing scheme. In this particular award no provision was made for short time or rationing so that a breach of award must be recorded. It was unfortunate that the company's praiseworthy efforts in its employees' interests should entail a breach, and obviously only a nominal penalty should be exacted.