UNUSUAL CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIX, Issue 206, 1 September 1938, Page 20

UNUSUAL CASE.

AN ALLEGED BREACH. INDUSTRIAL AWARD. SEQUEL TO APRIL FLOODS. (By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.) NAPIER, Wednesday. Can an art of God be held responsible for breath of an industrial award That was the question presented in the Hastings Court to Mr. J. Miller, S-M., in a case which arose through' lack of employment cause-! by the April floods in Hawke's Bay. ' The ease took the form of a claim by the Inspector of Awards, M r . W J Berryman, for £10 against the Hawke's Bay Farmers' Meat Company, the proprietors of the YVhakatu Freezin™ Works, for alleged broach of the award. 2- ami 23 wh instructions to stort again on April 27. In the meantime. however floods had occurred, and on the 2,th no work was available. He contended that the men had not been dismissed, and that as thev had I not been gnen 72 hours" notice of dismissal as required bv the Act thev continued to I*. in the employ of the I company, and should have boennai.l the nun.nnm, ~f 11/ daily for the period •luring which they were working. "Still on Payroll." Mr. Berryman said- that the only noti££r!. tbe men hed receiv ** wae through a newspaper advertisement and radio broadcast to the effect that fhe worke would not resume killing until a nrtS? f 2* e ' - the , re bein = no fOTmal notice of dwmieeal. The Department held that in the circumstances the men were still on the company s payroll and that for that week they should have received the minimum. He eubmitted that the newepaper advertisement and broadcast message did not constitute legal notification, and thet proper notice should have been placed on the notice boards "I- u e .r° rke m A l )ril 27 ' the date on wmch the men were originally to have resumed. Only Legal Means. Mr. H. Holderness, representing the company, questioned the who admitted that on account of the floods the men could not heve got to the works to eee the notice if it had been placed on the notice board. ■

Mr. Berryman held, however, that the poetinjr of the notice would have been the only legal means of notifying the men.

Mr. Holderneee: Everything poeeible was done to inform the men and the Hood wae responsible for the whole happening. He aleo eubmitted that thore w«e no provision in the award for any dismissal notice to be given. The magistrate reserved hie decision.