Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

DELAYED PAYMENT

EMPLOYER FINED

Aii alleged breach of the Wellington Plasterers' Award was the subject of a reserved judgment given by Mr. T. B. M'Neil, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court to-day, the parties being the Wellington Plasterers' Industrial ' Union of Workers and S. Bushby. The union claimed £10 from the defendant. In giving his decision the Magistrate said that on a Saturday morning J. B. Linton, a plasterer and a member of the union, having secured employment elsewhere, gave the defendant two hours' notice of his intention to leave. Having given notice, Linton agreed to stay on and work for the defendant ,on the following Monday, which he did, but Bushby was not at work that day, Slid Linton did not then receive the wages due to him. According to the provisions of a section of a clause in ,tho award, a worker was to be paid his wages within twenty-four hours after leaving the work. Linton was not paid until five or six weeks after he left, and then through the Labour Department, to whom the defendant had sent the money. "I am of opinion that on the facts in this case," said the Magistrate, "it was not incumbent on Linton to go to the works or the defendant's place of business for payment of his wages. . . The defendant's admission that he did not, until the following Friday, draw tho money to pay Linton's wagos shows that even if Linton had gone to the works or place of business on the Tuesday the defendant would not have then been ready to pay him. I am therefore of the opinion that on these facts the onus was on the defendant to pay Linton his wages by hand or send them to him through the Post Office within twenty-four hours. He did not do so, and thus committed a breach of clause 3 (c). I think that the breach calls for a fairly substantial penalty." . , The defendant was fined &5, with costs £2 Is. Security for appeal, was fixed. At the hearing Mr. J. Meltzer appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. F. M. Ongley for the defendant.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/EP19300714.2.166

Bibliographic details

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 12, 14 July 1930, Page 11

Word Count
356

DELAYED PAYMENT Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 12, 14 July 1930, Page 11

DELAYED PAYMENT Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 12, 14 July 1930, Page 11

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert