BREACH OF ACT

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 73, 30 March 1929, Page 5

BREACH OF ACT

FACTORY OWNER PENALISED

Failure to furnish the dining-room in his factory to the satisfaction of the Labour Department cost Philip Schneidonian, clothing manufacturer, £10 in the Magistrate's Court on Thursday.

Representing the Department, Mr. W. J. Mountjoy said that the defendant's factory was registered in April, the application for registration showing that 109 women workers were employed. An ■ inspection was made of the premises in May, and it was found that the furnishings in the dining-room wore inadequate. A letter was sent to tho defendant asking for the provision ot sufficient tables and chairs, and stressing the necessity for full compliance with the Factories Act. Several inspections were made subsequently, and letters wcro sent to Uie defendant, but he had failed to provide tho table and seating accommodation necessary for the full staff. Tho inspectors had not din-ing any inspection noticed moiv tables and chairs than were sufficient, for twelve persons, although tho defendant had said that lie had provided the necessary accommodation at one time, but most of the employees preferred to eat their meal in tho workroom. Mr. Mountjoy stated that the Department had been very lenient towards the defendant. No difficulty had been experienced with other firms throughout New Zealand, and tho defendant's attitude was most extraordinary. A heavy penalty was asked for. On Wednesday notice was received that the additional tables and chairs had been provided, but a hurried inspection showed that there was seating accommodation for only 44 persons, and tables for 54. The defendant had made no attempt to comply with the" requirements until after the proceedings were instituted.

Counsel for the defendant (Mr. S. W. JTitzherbert) said that when Selmeideman was first advised of the requirements he provided tables and chairs for the whole staff, but most of the workers would not use .them, and he had them taken away. He had not tried to evade his obligations under the ■Act.

The Magistrate (Mr. E. Page, S.M.) said that as the defendant appeared to have made no real effort to comply with the'inspector's requisition until after the case was called in Court, ho proposed to fine him filO, the maximum penalty for one offence. The defendant would be required to comply forthwith with tho requisition, if he had not already done so. If ho failed, there was provision to fine him for every day the offence continued.