SIX EMPLOYERS CHARGED

Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25448, 20 March 1948, Page 6

SIX EMPLOYERS CHARGED

DECISION RESERVED IN CASES AT AUCKLAND,

(P.A.) AUCKLAND, March 19. Charged with committing a breach of the Stabilisation Emergency Regulations, 1942, in February, by each paying a carpenter an increase of lid an hour on the basic rate of remuneration, six employers pleaded not guilty in the Magistrate’s Court before Mr F. H. Levien, S.M. Defendants were Alfred J. Good, F. R. Ross and Sons, Ltd., R. Savory, Ltd., the D. C. Street Construction Company, and W. H. Whittaker, Ltcj., all represented by Mr A. Clarke, and Thomas Clements, Ltd., represented by Mr Richmond.

The informations iyere laid by the Inspector of Factories. Mr G. S. R. Meredith, who conducted the case for the Department of Labour, stated that there was recently a go-slow movement among carpenters in Auckland, and after the movement started, defendants increased their wages, a breach of the regulations. It was submitted that in doing so the employers hardly co-operated with the Government in its attempts to combat the activities of the carpenters. By the present award and its amendment, the wage rate of carpenters was 3s 7d an hour. Until the date in February, defendants paid the carpenters mentioned in the charges the award rate, but toward the end of February an increased payment of lid an hour was made. Reginald Albert Holloway, an inspector of factories, gave evidence of visits paid to the offices of W. H. Whittaker, Ltd. and R. Savory, Ltd. The firms admitted that no contract permitted the increase. No classification scheme had been approved by the Stabilisation Commission, and no application for an increase had been mad£ to the Wages Commissioner. Asked whether the department would investigate breaches of the regulations, if they came to its knowledge, witness said they were often discovered. Mr clarke then asked witness whether the situations vacant advertisements in the daily newspapers were studied for breaches of the regulations, and proceeded to quote from two advertisements. One offered carpenters 5s an hour and another offered labourers 3s 2jd or 3s 3jd an hour. Labourers were to apply to the State Hydroelectric Department at Penrose. The Magistrate said it was general knowledge that competition was so keen that people had to pay extra for a good job. They just did not know about th<* regulations. Some did not care, and some paid through kindness. Mr Clarke: Even the State Hydroelectric Department, apparently. Questioned by Mr Clarke, Clifford Lorrie Hunter, 'Wages Commissioner, said that he received several requests by telephone from employers who asked whether he would entertain an application to increase carpenters’ pay by IJd an hour. He told them he could not do it in the circumstances. Asked whether it was useless- for them to apply, witness said that on the evidence over the telephone, it was. Gordon Brown, assistant District Superintendent of the Department of Labour, was asked by Mr Clarke whether it would not have been fairer to have prosecuted the persons who received extra, payments as well as those who paid. Witness said he took his instructions from the Secretary of Labour in Wellington. They were to institute proceedings'against those who had paid. Mr Clarke said that proof of the payments had not been submitted. The inspectors had said they had seen entries in books but that was the only evidence to prove the case. The Court should have had on oath the evidence of the men who were alleged to have received extra payments. The Magistrate said that the books were; by statute, bound to be kept. The Magistrate reserved his decision on all the cases.