BREACHES OF AWARD

Greymouth Evening Star, 23 July 1930, Page 3

BREACHES OF AWARD

GREYMOUTH LICENSEE FINED / Definite statements, and point-blank contradictions, were flung across the Magistrate’s Court at Greymouth yesterday afternoon, when it was alleged by the Inspector of Awards (Mr. F. G. Davies) that George Sydney Simpson, licensee of the Albion Hotel, Greymouth, had been guilty of committing breaches of the New Zealand Hotel Employees’ Award, and had also ob- 1 structed him in the discharge of his duties. The informations against Simpson were as follow: — That he failed correctly to record in a time and wages book the daily hours of his workers, as provided in Clause 15 of the award. A penalty of £5 was claimed. That he failed to pay a worker who had completed more than six months’ but less than twelve months’ service, a proportionate allowance foi' annual holidays, as provided in Clause 5 of the award. A penalty of £5 was claimed. That, on or about June 5, he failed to produce the time and wages book, when required to do so by an Inspector of Awards. That, on or about June 6, he obstructed an Inspector of Awards in the discharge of his duties under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and thereby committed a breach of sub-section 3, section 101 of the Act. Mr. J. W. Hannan appeared for defendant and pleaded not guilty. It was decided to hear all the cases together, in order to save repetition of the evidence. Mr. Davies said that on June 5, after receiving a complaint from a former worker at the hotel, he paid the Albion a visit about 3.30 p.m. He met defendant, explained who he was, and asked to be allowed to inspect the time and wages book.' Simpson refused, stating that he was too busy. Witness pointed out that it would take no more than two minutes, but Simpson refused to produce the book that day. Hfs refusal was very definite, and witness had no alternative but to go away. He again visited the hotel about 9.15 on the following morning, and met Mrs. Simpson and a young lady whom he assumed to be the clerk. He asked for the book, and Mrs. Simpson gave it to him very readily. As soon as he opened it he noticed that the hours of the workers were not entered, particularly those of the ex-barman, Tyler. Mrs. Simpson said that the reason his hours were hot entered was that he was paid more than the ordinary award wage, as it was necessary for him to work extra hours. Witness explained it was for that very reason that provision was made for the keeping of proper records. Just at that time, Mr. Simpson came into the office, and said that he wanted to make entries in the book. He proceeded to do so, but witness pointed out that he could not take any notice of any entries made at that stage. Simpson replied: “You will have to do so. You can please yourself. I am going to make them.” He made one entry of £5 as paid to Tyler. Witness then took hold of the book again, and commenced to examine it at about the date Tyler commenced duty in August last. Simpson objected to him examining the book, and, when witness said he must see it, Simpson snatched it out of his hands. Witness pointed out that there was no record of z hours worked, and Simpson replied that he would put the hours in, and witness could not see the book until that was done. Simpson proceeded to make further entries, and witness had no alternative but to leave the hotel for the second time.

The book was produced in Court, and the Inspector stated that the whole of the hours shown on one sheet had been filled in since his visit to the hotel.

Called by the Inspector, Albert Henry Tyler said that there was no record of hours in the wages book when he signed it. He worked overtime as barman, and also worked on special holidays such as Christmas Day and Good Friday. Simpson gave him £5 at Christmas, but during that period he' worked long hours, up to midnight. He received nothing extra for working on special holidays. When he left the hotel he asked Simpson three times for a proportionate allowance for annual holidays, but made no headway until he complained to the Inspector. Three weeks after leaving the hotel he received £4/6/3 from Simpson, but under the award he was entitled to more, and considered that Simpson still owed him £l/8/3.

To Mr. Hannan: He was positive that he worked on Christmas Day. He went to Christchurch for foui’ days’ holiday in January, but had to forfeit his weekly holiday until the four days were made up. His wages were £4/10/- Per week and found, which was equal to £6 per week. He was entitled to a half-holiday per week, and Sundays, but he always worked on Sundays and only got a half-day off per week. George Sydney Simpson said that the wages and time book was kept by the young lady in the office. When the Inspector called on June 5, witness was busy in the bar, and there was no one in the house at the time to relieve him. He explained the position to t£e Inspector, and asked him to call again in half an hour, but Mr. Davies said that he was a very busy man and could not come back. Witness said, “It is a funny thing, I have never heard of you before.” The Inspector replied, “You will hear of me now,” and went away. He returned the next morning, but no entries were made in the book meanwhile. Witness made an entry of £5 paid to Tyler, which had been overlooked, and the entry was made in the presence of the Inspector. Tyler did not work on Christmas Day. Witness did ho business on Christmas Day, as it was one of the days he respected. Tyler might have worked a couple of hours on Sunday evenings, serving guests in the house. He was paid for the four days he had at Christchurch, and only three were made up, the fourth being allowed as a holiday. He was paid time and a-half for work done on special holidays. He had paid Tyler more holiday pay than he was entitled to, and had paid him £l/2/6 per week more in wages than he was entitled to under the award. Mr. Davies said that he was prepared to S)year on oath that Simpson did not ask him to return in half an hour. “I differ from you there,” said defendant. Mr. Davies: Do you deny that you snatched the book out of my hands? — I did not. That is not my principle. “I swear that you did!” said the Inspector. “Do you say that you made no entries after you snatched the book?” Defendant: I did not. Mr. Davies: I swear that you did! Defendant: I say I did not! “All right,” said Mr. Davies, and proceeded to other questions. “What time

did you give Tyler that £5 note on Christmas Eve?” he asked. Defendant: That has no bearing on the case. The Inspector: Would it be two o’clock in the morning?—l don’t sit up as late as that. When did you give it to him?—l could not say. I am not in the habit of doing business at midnight or two o’clock in the morning. He did riot work overtime? —No, nor undertime, either. Will you say that this book has not been altered bj T anyone since my visit? —I cannot say. It has not been altered | by me. Not to my knowledge has that book been touched. 1 Addressing the S.M., the Inspector submitted, that, if the time and wages book was not kept correctly, it was impossible for anyone to find out mistakes. He would have been only too pleased to put defendart in the right way, but Simpson’s very offensive'and obstructive manner simj ’y meant that there was no alternative but to bring him before the Court. The S.M. said that nc doubt it was found inconvenient .by employers to produce wages books wh 11 called upon by the Inspector, bee: ’.se it meant that they had to be c. istantly kept up-to-date. However, tie award required it to be done, an for a breach of the award a penalty r Ist be inflicted. On the charge of L.iling to produce the book, defend nt would be fined £l. with 10/- cost-, and on the charge of obstructing th Inspector he would be fined 10/-, win 10/- costs. In respect to the claim for £lO, for failing to record correc ly the daily hours worked, and the su .sequent item of failing to pay a worker a proportionate allowance for annual holidays, judgment would be given for plaintiff for £2.

On the application of the Inspector, Tyler was allowed 17/4 as witness’s expenses.