BREACHES OF AWARD

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22111, 5 June 1937, Page 8

BREACHES OF AWARD

Penalties On Employer And Employees ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD NOT UPHELD "The evidence discloses that the defendant when he left New Zealand took no steps to ensure that the business was carried on in accordance with the award,” said Mr F. F. Reid, S.M., in giving judgment for the Labour Department on six causes of action brought under the bakers’ and pastrycooks’ award against Herbert Edward Stevenson, a pie manufacturer of Haast street, Richmond, and on proceedings against two of s^. v ® n " son’s employees, Morris Edward Victor Barnden and Bernard W. Williams, m the Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning. The claims involved allegaon proceedings against two of Stevenson and Williams by which the employment division of the (.cpartmcnt was defrauded, in that Williams had received sustenance while employed, but the Magistrate rejected the allegation of such an agreement. The claims against Stevenson were for the following breaches of the award: Failing to pay Baxnden a foreman’s rate of wages; failing to pay Williams £5 10s a week as a t 3 ° r ates man baker; failing to pay extra rates to Barnden and Williams for be«ning work in the early morning, failing to pay Barnden and Williams overtime rates; failing to pay Earnden and Williams extra rates for work on New Year’s Day. January 2 and the day of the grocers’ picnic; failing w keep correctly recorded in the time and wages book the name of eve y worker, his kind of work, and his daily hours. , The claims against Barnden and Williams were for failing to claim the correct rates of wages and overtime. “The evidence will disclose one or the most glaring attempts to obtain money by fraud from the unemployment fund that it has ever been my duty to pla*3 before the Court, said Mr R. T. Bailey, who appeared for the department, in opening the cases, which were heard together. “In one instance there has been a deliberate fraud perpetrated on the employment branch of the department, inasmuch as Williams has been in regular weekly employment and at the same time been in receipt of sustenance from the employment fund.” Mr Bailey said that although Stevenson had been in England from November 19, 1935, and the cases covered a period from September 1, 1936. and March, 1937, the evidence would dr-close that he made the arrangements and they, were carried out during his absence. Arrears of wages due amounted to £224 9s 6d.

“The strange thing about it was that nobody knew who was in charge,” said Sydney William Armstrong, an inspector of the department, in desc ibiug his visit to the bakery. “Mr Dawson appeared to be in charge of ihe finance and Barnden to be foreman baker.

Employee’s Allegations Williams described the arrangements he had entered into with Stevenson before the latter’s departure for England. He was to receive 25s a week. “It was his idea that this, combined with sustenance, was not such a bad wage,” witness said. He added that he thought that Stevenson would make good what was due to him on his return from England. When his hours became far in excess of the working week he kept a diary of the hours he worked, He had been receiving sustenance, which had been stopped at the beginning of March. The witness told Mr R. A. Young, who appeared tor Stevenson and Barnden, that he bought pies from the bakery and sold them, and for three weeks had done other work for a cartage contractor. Mr Young asked whether he had not once assumed the name of the “Earl of Dalgleish” and been convicted of fraud. The witness said that he had used a false name, but not that mentioned by Mr Young. Mr Young said that there was nothing in the sinister aspect of the case put forward by Mr Bailey. Stevenson had been a manufacturer of pies for eight years, and had employed labour. He had not been before the Court before. He did not even know that Williams was on sustenance when he took t him into employment before leaving 'on a health trip for England. He understood that Williams would work only two hours a day, and he did not think that the men would have to work overtime during his absence. He was prepared to pay them reasonable wages. Penalties of £4 on each of the first three claims were allowed against Stevenson, and penalties of £3 on each of the others. Penalties of £3 each were allowed against Barnden and Williams. The Magistrate said that Stevenson’s ill-health before he left for England might account for his slackness in failing to make arrangements to see that the award was observed, but it had resulted in a flagrant and glaring breach of the award for which he must be responsible. The Magistrate held that there was no conspiracy between Stevenson and Williams to defraud the department. The long hours worked, however, led to unfair competition with other firms.