UNDER-AGE WORKER Court Rules Firm Had Liability

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30302, 30 November 1963, Page 14

UNDER-AGE WORKER Court Rules Firm Had Liability

(Neu> Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, November 29. An appeal by the Inspector of Factories against the dismissal of two informations alleging the employment of a girl under the age of 15 has been allowed by Mr Justice Tompkins. The defendant company was M.G.V. Stationery and Office Appliances, Wellington. The informant was Jack Crosbie Bowker.

His Honour said in a judgment delivered in the Supreme Court at Wellington today that the company had been charged that, on May 21, 1963, it employed in its factory Robyn Edna Nicholson, a girl under 15 contrary to section 37 (1) of the Factories Act, 1946. The company had also been charged with employing the girl to work on a folding machine contrary to section 12 (1) of the Machinery Act, 1950. His Honour said the bindery forewoman, who had the responsibility of employing female labour, had been given strict instructions not to employ, under any circumstances, any girls under 15. Before she engaged Miss Nicholson on May 13, 1963, the forewoman had been informed by the girl’s mother that the girl was 15. She was not, in fact, 15 until July 5. On May 21, an inspector found the girl working at the folding machine. The company dismissed her as soon as it was ascertained that she was under 15. At the Magistrate’s Court hearing it had been found that when the company engaged the girl, and thereafter until on May 21, her true age was ascertained, it honestly bflievea she was more than 15 and therefore her employment was not in contravention of either act. The Magistrate further held that guilty knowledge was an essential ingredient of the offences charged, and

dismissed both Informations. The informant appealed by way of a case stated. Mr Justice Tompkins said he thought the terms of the relevant statutes and the subject-matter with which they dealt strongly supported the view that the Legislature intended that the occupier should be strictly liable for any offence committed, and that he should not escape by showing lack of guilty knowledge. Allowing the appeal, he ordered the case to be remitted to the Magistrate’s Court to enter a conviction in both prosecutions. He said the case was regarded as a test case, and no penalty or order for costs was sought