HEAD STOREMAN'S STATUS

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3161, 13 August 1917, Page 6

HEAD STOREMAN'S STATUS

AN INTEBESTING JUDGMENT. A reserved judgment of some importance to trade unionists was delivered in the Magistrate's Court on Saturday by Mr. S. E. M'Carthy, S.H., in the case in which the Inspector of Awards (Mr. G. )H. Lightfoot) proceeded against Bing, Harris and Co., Ltd., to recover a penalty for failing to keep a wages anu overtime book, as required by Section 58 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1908. The facte, observed the Magistrate, were that the defendant company had in its employ a mail named Peter Watt, and this man was manager or foreman , (it mattered little about what term was employed) of the packing and dispatching department. His dutywas to supervise tho brixnch, keep the accounts thereof, especially the wages and tirue-book, assist -whenever necessary in any department of the branch's work, and to work overtime whenever any, of the other storemcn were so doing. Watt's duties were confined to the packing branch. He received more than the award rate of wages, which were paid monthly on a yearly basis. Whenever Watt w«s absent from duty his place was taken Jiv a member of the clerical branch of the defendant company's employees. The main part of Watt's work was supervising. The defendant company kept a wages and overtime book in connection with the branch. No record was. however, kept of Watt's, wages or overtime. The defendant company contended that Watt was not n worker within the scope of the award in that lie was manager of tliafr branch, and that the main part, of his work was supervising and clerical. It was further contended that. Watt was' not a worker within tho scope of the, inward. His Worship did not agree with this contention, and held that Watt was a member of the packing sinlV. whether ho ivns mllcd manager, foreman, or packer. The mere fort Hint tho main part of his duties were supervising and clerical, that the defendant company called •liini a manager and that he was paid more than 1:li° minimum \vn»e. wove all immaterial. After dealing with the leal aspect of the matter the Magistrate said the defendant company had failed to keep a record in the wages and overtime book of the wages paid to and overtime worked by til" foreman or overseer of its paoking branch. It therefor 0 , could n"t be said to have kept the book within the meaning of Section 58 A fine of with costs, was imP °on'tlic application of Mr. A. W. Blair, e.n'i"sr : for I 1 '.? defendant, compmj, se-