INDUSTRIAL AWARD CASES.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 13645, 31 January 1910, Page 4

INDUSTRIAL AWARD CASES.

SEVERAL FROSECUTIONS. The Stipendiary Magistrate (Mr HW. Bishop) on Saturday heard several award eases brought by the Inspector j of Awards (Mr \Y. H. | llio Inspector proceeded against Emily Collins for oonmuttine « breacli of tlio Caiittrbury Drivers" in that slio employed a youth named Arthur William Newman. IS years of age. to drive a horse, and paid him 20s per wook instead of ±i> I*l, the awcml rate. The defendant was further charged with failing to keep a time book and verify tlio entries every 24 hours. Mr Hunt apjxare*.! for the defence. Evidence- was given in support of tho nufio. and t!i<? .MsgLvtrntt." came to tho conclusion tlint deliberate breaches of tlio award had been com :m it ted. A p-n----alty of £3 w:us itnpcsa'd on 'tho first charge tind £1 on the second. Alfred John O'Malicy, licensee of tho Zetland Hotel, was charged "uiUi employing an' employee naniexl F. H. Curline, a general hand, for more than (vj hours, without paying the overtime rate, a-s provided in tho Hotel and Restaurant Employees' Award.

The complainant Curlino said that during Carnival Week he worked 79J hours. He signed the wages book, which die! not show the overtime. Ht« higned it because ho was advi.wl by Mr Hood (.Inspector oi' Factories) to sign it. The Mofiistnte said that if the Inspector advised the man to s-ipi without having the overtime entered it was >i meat improper tiling. Inspector Hood state! f hat he had no recollection of having given this ndvico. but lie advised Curline to accept his wages. The defendant- stated that during Carnival Wivk he employed four extra hands, in order to obviate the necessity of the staff working overtime. Explicit instructions were given to the employees not to work overtime. Members of his staff also Rave evidence that to tiie bust of their knowledge no overtime was worked luring Carnival Wick.

The Magistrate said that tho evidence in the oa':e \v:ts neither complete nor satirfjittoiy. It was tho duty of witnessri for tho nr«sp-eiition to assist tho lrsppctor of Awards, but they bhoiild not loud themselves to anything which would lca<l to throw discredit on their evidence. 'I in* doubt in this vsuse. had orison purely through the act of tne man himseiV. Ho (the Magistrate) failed to see why the man should sign a lKiok without string that the hours wcro correctly entered. Tho witness ltaJ deliberately signed .the book, and

afterwards that die hours iv_>re not correctly entered. Under those circumstances he could expect no sympathy or assistance from the Court, -i'he case was dismissed.

Edward Uartncil, metal carter, was charged with committing a breach < i the drivers' Award, in that he failed to pay the award rate of wages to James Hartnell, between October 4th and December 11th, 190 D. Sir Flcsher appeared for the defence, which alleged a partnership. Evidence was given by H. Hunter (secretary of the Drivers' Union) and Inspector Hood, regarding various statements made by the Hartnclls in respect to the partnership. These statements were so conflicting, in the opinion of the witnesses, as to raiso the presumption that the partnership, which was an oral one, had been entered into subsequent to + lio alleged breaches of the award. Mr Hagger called James Hartnell, and subjected him to a lengthy examination as to his financial relations with his brothers in the partnership. He said that he joined the partnership ten months ago, paying £10 to come in. He admitted telling Inspector Hood that he paid £50, but he said that before he was ready. The evidence of H. Hartnell and E. Hartnell was to the effect that their brother returned from the South in March last, and was taken into the business ou a payment of £10. He was entitled to a third share in the business. E. Hartnell said that he had told Inspector Hood that there was a written agreement, but this was a mistake on his part. . The Magistrate dismissed the caw. He said that what would be highly suspicious under ordinary circumstances ceased to be so in the case of relatives, especially when the relationship was as close as it was in this case.