TIME AND PAY SHEETS

Evening Post, Volume CII, Issue 33, 8 August 1921, Page 8

TIME AND PAY SHEETS

ALLEGED CONSPIRACY TO

DEFRAUD *

SHIPPING TIMEKEEPER AND FOREMAN CHARGED.

The hearing of.charges of conspiracy to defraud laid against George Churchill, coal foreman and head timekeeper, and Alexander Joseph 'Chisholm, assistant timekeeper, employees of the Union Steam Ship Company, was commenced at the Supreme Court this morning, before Iris Honour Mr. Justice Reed and a jury of twelve. It is alleged that the accused, by means of falsified time-sheets, defrauded the company of sums totalling £165 6s lOd during the period 7th September, 1920, to 23rd February, 1921. Mr. P. S. K. Macassey appeared for tho Crown, Mr. H. F. O'Leary for Churchill, and Mr. A. B. Sievwright for Chisholm. Mr. W. Gardiner was foreman of the jury. It is ; anticipated that the hearing of evidence will occupy at least three full days. In outlining the case for the Crown, Mr. Macassey explained that it was the duty of the accused Ch-irchill to engage waterside workers as required, to assign them to particular coal boats, and to make out a list of such gangs for the foremen in charge of the ship gangs. The foremen then copied the lists into their books, and it was the duty of the foremen at the end of the day to record the time worked by the men under them, and to ; hand those records to Churchill. The latter had then to check those lists with the lists already made out in the morning, and to enter the names and the time of workers in, record books containing white and green slips, with a carbon paper between the slips, so that that record would be duplicated. In the morning the slips were handed in to the Employers' Association, which, by arrangements with the companies concerned, carried out the payment of wages for work on the waterfront. The association retained the white slip as a check, and also made out a special card for each man, while the green slip was to be held by the Union Company. Wages were paid on Friday morning through six windows, but when men were unable to collect their, wages in the usual course they were able to do so later in tlie day over the general office counter. !

It was ascertained, the Crown alleged, that between 7th September, 1920, and 23rd February, 1921, the books of green slips contained the names of two men, "T. A. Wells" and "E.; N. Walker," in many places, and that sums totalling £165 6s lOd had been paid out by the association in respect of these entries. ' - v The Crown Prosecutor referred •to the several statements made by the accused, pointing out what he considered marked contradictions, and mentioned that though the accused had, been given six weeks to find the Wells and ' Walker. who had worked on the coal boats, apparently nothing had been done, to find the men. OTHERS PROBABLY CONCERNED. It would appear, said Mr. Macassey, that another or others had had a part in the conspiracy, otherwise the money' could not have been paid on the receipts for pay issued, but owing to the manner' in which those receipts had been ! issued and the fact that they were not i initialled it was not possible .to trace i the man or ( men who had made put the ' receipts. The accused had hot been ableito give a satisfactory explanation of several matters; for. instance, why the' names of Wells and Walker appeared on one slip but not on another, and why the names always appeared at the bot- , torn of the slips. . ' A "T. A. Wells" .had worked for the Union Company up to May, 19J20; but since then he had been employed by the Wellington Harbour Board. "E. N. Walker," too, had not "worked for the \JJnion Company since May. 1920, and but one " T. A. Wells" and one "E. N! Walker " worked on the waterfront, and both denied that the signatures at the pay office were theirs. The records of" the men engaged and the foremen's lists had disappeared, but one record of men engaged, had been secured, and on it-appeared the names of Wells and' Walker, though the names did not appear on the 'corresponding list made out by the foreman of the' particular gang. In this case, as with the thirty or forty slips upon which the na-mes i of Wells and Walker appeared, the names were written at the bottom of the slips.

Chisholm was Churchill's assistant, and .had '■, on occasions, the Crown alleged, irade out returns for Wells and Walker on the slips, apparently on, the instruction of Churchill. On occasion he had remarked to Churchill'that he did not think the procedure straight, but had been assured that it was straight enough. It would ,be shown that wages paid to Wells and Walker were never paid through the usual pay window, but were handed over the office counter, and it was to be noted' that a, special bonus to men who had worked prior to February had never been applied for by Wells or Walker. :

The Grown based its charges upon a series of points : (a), The only T. A. Wells and E. N. Walker on the waterfront were employed by the Harbour Board, and had not worked -on coal boats ■.since May, 1920; (b) the foremen established that these men had not worked on coal boats; (c) the true Wells and Walker would be called to state that they did not sign the pay■ receipts; (d) since the checks were made the names of Wells and Walker! had not appeared, and a bonus for Wells and Walker had not been claimed; (c) the 1 names appeared always at the bottom of the lists ;, (f) the cards showed that during eight weeks the two men had been credited with equal time, and pay week by week; (g) the foremen's books, which alone could show the names of those who actually worked on the boats, and were kept in the office of the acoused, had, with the exception of three, disappeared.

EVIDENCE CALLED. The total • number of hours credited to "Wells" and "Walker," said Mr. Macassey, was 769 ordinary hours and 259 overtime hours.

He then referred the jury to details of the statement of time and pay, and called as the first witness for the Crown Captain Robert Storey Walton, local marine superintendent for the Union Steam Ship Company, who repeated the evidence given by him in the Lower Court. Churchill had been in the employ of the company for about twenty years, and Chisholm for four or five years. Witness said that he discovered discrepancies in the records when he profited by a hold-up on the waterfrontin February to examine the books. Some of the alleged falsified entries, were in Churchill's handwriting, and some in Chisholm's. When asked where the missing records were, Churchill said that he did not know where the foremen's books were, and that he had destroyed his own rough engagement books as a matter of course, for ho kept by him only that which he was using Chisholm, as assistant, did riot keep books of his own. < ,

In answer to Mr. Sievwright, witness said tliat Chisholm was merely a transcriber, who entered records according to information supplied. The whole system was simple, but even so, men woro ;

sometimes credited with less time than they had actually worked, but those were "simple mistakes made by simple men." It was possible that men engaged by Churchill in the morning would not turn up at the boats, and it was again possible •that the foremen would not enter their names if they did, but in any case Chisholm should have taken the particulars from the foremen's and not from Churchill's books.

After the luncheon adjournment the cross-examination of Captain Walton was continued. ■

Mr. O'Leary: "Did you ever issue instructions to Churchill or Chisholm that their books and the foremen's books were to be ' kept?"—-"Seeing that our system cannot . work without them 1 did not think it necessary. Actually 1 did not, but I know that books were kept as a general thing." Witness added that in future he intended to se9 that the 'books were kept in. his own office. . "Do ypu know of instances of labourers who have worked three or four days, and yet have not been credited with that time, ov of men booked up as on one job while they worked on another ?"—" I know of instances —rare instances." ■ ' ' " You know of many instances where men have been engaged, but have not gone to work?"—" Yes." Edward Cyril Smythe, accountant in the employ of the Waterside Labour Employment Association, gave evidence as to the system followed in the office and the entries complained of by the Crown. ■ ■.••

(Proceeding.)