LESS THAN AWARD WAGE

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 48, 26 February 1927, Page 10

LESS THAN AWARD WAGE

BOY UNDERSTATES HIS IQE."' ' A,mistake by an employee regarding His own age resulted in Messrs.. James Smith,"Ltd., being charged in the Magistrate's Court on Thursday with hay- ! ing failed to pay_ the award' rate of wages. The employee, Seth Harris, aged 19, was also,charged with having..accepted less than the amount stipulated by the Court. The Inspector of Awards (Mr. I. Georgeson) appeared for the Labour Department, and"^Mr. X.: &. Atkinson for the defendants.' ■ ' The facts were that Harris, vrhen engaged by the firm in 1925,.gave his age as 15 years, believing, through some mistake, that that was correct. The firm paid him more .than the award rate on the assumption that his age was as stated, and it was not until three years afterwards that it was discovered by both parties.that the youth had-under-stated his. age by one year. This meant that, although Harris had at first been receiving more than that to which he was entitled,' he had latterly been receiving the award rate for a person one'year his junior, and; lie was therefore receiving less than, he really should.- '...- ' ; ' :V ..-■■ '-. :.'.

Mr. Atkinson said the firm had about 120 employees, and that approximately SO per cent. of : them were receiving more than the award wage. In the case of Harris, he.had been entitled to only 17s 6d as a boy of 15, yet he had been.given 25s a week. • Later, when he was entitled to''22s 6d he had been receiviur 30s. .

Mr. E. Page, S.M., said he was quite satisfied that there had been a bona fide mistake on both sides, ] The boy had nothing to gain by understating his age, and the defendant company had paid-him more at first than that ' to which it was believed he was entitled. The firm was not intentionally; violating +he award, though the later payments were lower than they would have been ;on his real age. No deliberate breach had been committed, and there had been no culpable negligence!

The charges against both James Smith, Ltd., and the defendant- Harris were dismissed. The Magistrate would not make an order for costs ugaintt the department. :' '.-■'■ !