BREACHES OF AWARD.

Evening Post, Volume LXXIX, Issue 15, 19 January 1910, Page 8

BREACHES OF AWARD.

[BX TELEGRAPH — PRESS ASSOCIATION.] OAMARU, This Day. Waddell and Co. were charged on two counts with breaches of the tailoresses' award — (1) Employing an excessive number of apprentices to female operatives; and (2) failing to have bespoke orders made up on their own premises. With regard to the first count, the defendants pleaded that they had bean working with a proper proportion of operatives, but that two had left, leaving one apprentice too many. They had 6ecured another operative, making the proportion right, and were expecting another operative any day. They had also secured another apprentice. It was stated in extenuation that there was great difficulty in securing operatives. The defendants were fined 10s, without costs. Defendant admitted the facts set out in the second count, and pleaded that the clause with regard to the offence had been inserted in the award primarily to prevent sweating. It was not intended that a firm, during the rush season, should be prevented from getting another firm to assist them. The magistrate recorded a conviction, tho inspector not pressing for a penalty. The same firm admitted employing female hands before 8 a.m., and were fined 20s, with costs. Stevenson and Grant, tailors, were chai'ged with employing girl# on a statutory half-holiday. They pleaded that their cutter was responsible for the breach ; they were not aware of the statute. They were fined 20s, with costs. W. Mowbray, pastrycook, was charged with failing to pay the award rate to an apprentice. Defendant's counsel admitted the breach, but- pleaded that Mowbray had been paying wages according to the previous scale, not knowing it was a wrong one. The magistrate took this into consideration, and inflicted a nominal penalty of 10s, defendant undertaking to pay up arrears.