KAIAPOI WOOLLEN FACTORY.

Press, Volume XLVI, Issue 7442, 16 October 1889, Page 6

KAIAPOI WOOLLEN FACTORY.

At ihe Resident Magistrate a Court, yesterdsv morning, before Mr R. Beetham. B.M.,*and Mr Westenra, J.P., R. Bennett aoed theKaiapoi Clothing Factory for £3 Wβ, being one week's wages at jBI los and one week's wages in lieu of notice of dischaxoe. Mr Brages for plaintiff; Mr Fisher for the Company. R. BennetteT the plaietiff, said that he mi a presser, andfaad btjen in the employment of the Company, with an interval, about six years. Hβ began in Adhl, ,lßß*, at £1 per week, and had increases to £1 15*. I» November, 1880, he wished to go to Melbourne, and anve a weeks notice of hisiotentlon, and Mr Pascoe gave him a goodreferencetorodeced.) Hewaeaway till October, 1838, when he returned, and was taken on at the same wages. The week ior wages purposes ended on each Wednesday, and Thursday was payday. On Saturday, September 20th, Mr Pascoe, the manager, came to him and asked him if he had joined the Union- Plaintiff said he had, Mr Pascoe said he had not only done so, but had induced others to join, and that he had done himself harm. He tben said that plaintiff could take two or three weeks' holiday till after stocktaking. Plaintiff applied at the factory for work during several weeks, but was told there was no work for him. At last he asked Mr Pascoe if it was the " sack ,, : should he look out for another job? Mr Paacoe said, " Yes." There had been no complaints by foremen as to his work. He had not been paid for the halfweek after September 17 tb. He claimed a whole week's pay for that, and another week's pay instead of notice. Crow-examined-Often made broken time. Was paid only for the actual time worked. There was a large number of people employed at the factory. No one- ever got " notice," nor did they get the " sack." When it was wished to dispense with a man he was told to take holiday*. He might go back as often as he liked expecting to be set to work again, but would be put off until he gdt tired, and got work at another place, or went away. The Union had not put plaintiff up to bring. this action; they hud no; undertaken to pay the expenses. James Walters, a pressor, a fated thit he had been at the trade nine or ten years. Was now at Parser and Tribe's. Ho believed it was the custom in the trade to give or take a week's notice. Cross-examined—He had an arrange ment with his employers for a week's notice on either aide. He had worked at the Kaiapoi factory; when he left he did not receive a week's notice. He and others were suspended—got holidays. Had not made any claim; he got anotner job in. a week. Joseph Clure, presser, stated that he had been employed in the Factory. Was p»ld for actual time worked at so much per week. When he left he got no notice. Be was suspended with others because they sent a petition tb the boss asking Whether a foreman had a right to suspend men in the absence of the boss. Had known many of the employes to give a week*, notice, but had never known any one to receive it. Lizzy Marden stated that she had been employed at the factory for seven years. On October sth she was suspended. Mr Pascoe said she had joined the Union, and had done a very stupid thing. She would get no more work until she had alteied her opinion. Cross-examined—She wae on piecework. Matthew Baxter, presser, deposed that he had been at the factory twelve months. The custom was to give or take a week's notice. That was the custom at Ballantyne and Co.'a. Cross-examined—There was no arrangement for a week's notice. He gave Mr Pascoe a week's notice. Never knew Mr Pascoe to "sack" a man or give him notice. He always gave • " holidays," and those who got them were not taken on again. .Donald Griffiths, presser, deposed that lie had' been nearly two years at tha factory. On October Bth he and his mate got " holidays." Oα askiutr the reason, he was told that they were too expensive for the Company. On going tb see about being taken on again they saw their table had bee* filled. He expected a .week's notice on discharge. ■ Cross-examined—Never knew any one to. get a week's notice. Had known men to be discharged after several weeks , suspension, . . :• -; . ,;. .. ■■■ James Lawson, said he had been at the factory seven years. ' Tha custom of the trade wasto jajlve notice on either side. Was suspended at the same time as Griffiths. Belonged to, the Union, that was the real cause of the trouble. Cross-examined—Mr Pascoe told him that if he had not had anything, to do with the Union he would have been better off. The hards could nob work when they pleased and stay away when they pleased. 1 they wanted to stay away they would have to apply for leave. Re-examined— Was paid' for the actual time he worked at so much per week. Alice Newman, vest jnaker, said. she had been at the factory seveu or eight years. She was oh piece work. Xiast week Mr Pascoe charged her with belonging to the Union. He said she could take holiday for two or three days to think over it: if then she saw fit to alter her opinion she could have some more work. This was the case for the plaintiff. ■ Mr Fisher, after pointing out that no evidence had been brought to show that it was customary to give notice, called Mr Pascoe, manager of the Factory. He stated that he had been in the busiuess thirty-five years, and had acted as manager in various colonies for twenty-five years. Toe factory employed 500 hands. - All of them of whatever grade were employed on the same condition*. They were paid at so much per week, and were paid only for the actual time worked, and overtime after regular hours. There was no arrangement as to nof'icei Did not Temeralwr receiving a week's notice from Bennett, nor from anyone else. He (witness) never gave nor took it. The Company did not expact men , when not at work to hold themselves at call. In all his experience never know of notice being given; it would be impossible or too troublesome to work the concern on : that system. Did not suspend Bennetts on account of his belonaing to the Union. It ' was on account of stocktaking; all hands were then knocked off. Could not say that if Bennetts had applied he would have r been taken on. Most likely he would. As ;to Griffiths' table being filled, that was probably a rearrangement. Croas-exa<nined—Never nave notice; did not expect it. If all the bands turned out they would most likely find others. A man could leave at a day, or a half a day if he chose. Did not know that ■ Bennett gave notice when he left for Melbourne. Did not call liim a first class man. On looking at the paper produced saw that he had written that hie work was satisfactory, and that he could recommend him for a similar position. Gave that reference because Bennett was going to another colony. Nothing was said about the Union; did not suspend him on that account. It was on account of stocktaking. Did not think any new hands had been taken on since stocktaking. Re-examined—Bennett's wages for the two days and a half were ready for him ever since the proper pay day. Mr Fisher did not call any other evidence. Addressing the Court he said the plaintiff had failed to show that he had any right to a week's notice, or even that he* had been discharged. Neither had there been any proof that notice was the practice or custom of the firm or trade. Mr Beetham said that there had not been any reliable evidence as to custom; the plaintiffs case must stand or fall by the bare facts, which were, that he had been engaged at 35s a-week, and that he was paid «t that rate for the time he actually worked. If he did not work in any part of the week he was not paid for that part. It was a purely legal point whether or not there had been a weekly hiring. ' Mr Bruges replied, quoting authorities to show that there had been a weekly hiring, and that plaintiff was. entitled to a week's notice. Mr Beetham said there had been .Imported into the case a good deal of evidence to show that there was a disagreement? between the employers and the men on account of the Union. The parties must settle that between themselves. A Court of law had nothing to dc with it. What ever sympathies the Bench might have they could not take cosmisance of that featnre of the case. What they had to settle was a mere dry point of law and as It seemed to be a rather important matter judgment would be held over to some future date, of which counsel would be advised. The case was listened to by a large number of people, who at some parts of tne evidence showed a disposition to audibly m&rk their opinion.