Employer And Employees Fined For Award Breach

Press, Volume XCVI, Issue 28422, 31 October 1957, Page 22

Employer And Employees Fined For Award Breach

(New Zealand Press Association)

HAMILTON. October 30.

An employer and seven employees who evaded the provisions of an industrial award were fined by Mr Justice Tyndal at a sitting of the Arbitration Court in Hamilton. Evidence brought by the Department of Labour showed that the workers had.agreed with their employer to be naid a* nrd’nary rates of pay for work performed before 7.30 a.m.. instead of double time as provided by the award. The defendants, the Jury Construction Company, Ltd., and W. H. McLachlan, K. A. J. Curtis, N. C. Reid, A. G. Curtis. K. J. Price. J. A. Wilkin, and I. W. Hawes, were not represented, nor did they appear before the Court. Mr C. P. Dolbel appeared for the Department of Labour. On February 5. two of the department’s inspectors had kept watch on two construction jobs in the Matamata business area, said Mr Dolbel. Seven carpenters had been seen to start work at 7 a.m. On February 14 the inspectors had returned to Mata-: mata and inspected the time sheets I

and wages book of the company. They had interviewed Mr T. T. Jury, and in company with Mr Jury the seven employees concerned. Mr Dolbel said that all had admitted that since October 9. 1956. the seven employees had been paid at ordinary rates for the period from 7 a.m. to 7.30 a.m. each day. This was entered in the time sheets and wages books as travelling time. All work before 7.30 a.m. should have been at double rates. “It is a clear case of an employer and workers entering into an agreement to commit a breach of the award with the intention of evading the payment of double time.” said Mr Dolbel. “An award j is much more than a bit of paper 11 suggest that it is quite shocking ■ to find this employer and his emloyees combining in such a coldblooded manner tp evade the provisions of the award.” In evidence. C. P. Brookes, inspector of awards at Hamilton said the reason advanced by both the workers and their employer I was that they had been employed lon suburban work, where they! had received half an hour travelling time each day. On being transferred to town jobs early in October they had approached Mr Jury with a request to start work at 7 a.m. He had refused to pay double time, but was agreeable to pay ordinary rates provided the extra half-hour was treated as travelling time.

H. C. A. Smith, another inspector of awards at Hamilton, said that the department had received a complaint, but it had not been made by any of the parties concerned in the case.

The employer was fined £25 and each employee £5. the full amounts claimed by the department.