ALLEGED AWARD BREACH

Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 23944, 11 May 1943, Page 7

ALLEGED AWARD BREACH

MILK-BAR PROPRIETOR’S UNUSUAL DEFENCE

EMPLOYEES AS PARTNERS

The Arbitration Court, which opened its sittings in Christchurch yesterday, was occupied with a test case brought by Sydney William Armstrong, inspector of awards, against Albert Edward Langbarn, trading as the Crystal Confectionery, of Cathedral square, Christchurch, milk-bar proprietor. The plaintiff claimed to recover £lO as a penalty of the tearooms and restaurants employees' award for an alleged breach on March 30, 1942. After hearing addresses by counsel, the Court reserved its decision. Mr K. G. Archer appeared for the inspector of awards, and Mr C. S. Thomas represented the defendant. Langham, it was stated by Mr Archer, had failed to keep a correctly recorded time and wages book in respect of the employment of Margaret McDairmid Orr, Jessie McDairmid Orr, Enid Howell, and Audrey Langham in breach of clause 21 of the award. Miss Langham was the defendant's daughter, and Miss Howell was his niege. Because of complaints that these girls had been working after 10.30 p.m„ an inspection of the premises was made, They were found working, and a warning was subsequently issued. However, a further inspection was made some time later, and three Of the girls were found to be working after hours. The defendant then claimed that all fcur girls were partners with him in the business, and that a suitable agreement had been drawn up and signed. "This is intended really as a test case," said Mr Archer. "The Court will be asked to determine whether these girls are partners and outside the award, or whether they are employees and bound bythe award.” The defendant had admitted, said counsel, that he had no wages book for these girls. But he had a book which showed the respective amounts drawn as partners each v eek. Mr Archer submitted that the partnership had been entered into for the purpose of defeating the award. Workers could not contract themselves out of an award, he added, and into an alleged partnership. The latter had been entered into for the definite purpose of avoiding proceedings when Langham had been threatened of the consequences of a breach of the award by the inspector. Two of the girls, he pointed out, were only 17 years old. In reply, Mr Thomas contended that the partnership was genuine. The parties had agreed to share both profits and losses.

The plaintiff, in evidence, said.that he held definite views that workers should share in the profits of a business, His daughter and niece had been brought in at award rates, and he had carried on until the partnership agreement had been signed on June 5, 1942. It was decided by the parties that they would draw v hat they had been receiving in wages, and then take the balance at the end of the year. Langham sa ; d, in reply to Mr Archer, that he had not prepared a profit and loss account until the present proceedings had begun. Mr Archer: In whose name is the bank account?—ln mine. Do your tradcs-pcoole know that you are running this business as a partnership and that the others are liable with you for debts? —No. Have any of these girls ever put any capital into this business?—No, but they might do so later To Mr Justice Tyndall the witness said that he had no recollection whatsoever of a warning from the inspec*°Mr Archer commented that Mr Thomas had not called any of the female partners.