Auckland Firms Fined for Overpaying Carpenters

Grey River Argus, 23 April 1948, Page 7

Auckland Firms Fined for Overpaying Carpenters

R.A. AUCKLAND, April 22. Fines of £2 each were imposed, in a reserved decision given by Mr F. H. Levien, S.M., oh five Auckland building firms, which were charged with breaches of the Stabilisation Emergency Regulations for paying carpenters an increase of lid an hour above the basic rate of remuneration last February. The_defendants were Alfred J. Good and F. G. Rose and Son, Ltd., and D. C. Street Construction Co., and W. H. Whittaker, Ltd., all of which were represented by Mr Clarke. A similar charge against Thomas Clements. Ltd., was dismissed. After the Magistrate had stated he intended to convict the five defendants, as he had found that they had paid the unauthorised lid an hour extra during the period, Mr Clarke, for defendants, made submissions in mitigation of penalties. Counsel said the defendants were engaged in work of national importance, and an investigation of the work done by the carpenters during their “go slow” period showed that production was cut in half, and in some cases, a fifth of the normal output. . The employers had to comply with the carpenters’ demands for the extra I’d in view of the urgency of the work, and also for their own survival. Defendants were forced into unauthorised payments, rather than actively initiating them. Counsel added that an element of discrimination was shown in prosecuting the firms, and not the carpenters who received the payments. Also, the Court, by its penalty, could express its views on the enforcement being discriminatory, and he submitted that the convictions should be regarded as warnings. MAGISTRATE'S COMMENT “It seems to me that the words ‘economic stabilisation’ might mean a continuity of our economic life, so that the country will at least keep on an even keel”, said the Magistrate. “The five defendants were forced into a situation, not of their own making”, he said. “They had to go on with the economic necessities oi’ building houses, which were most, important to national life. I have to fix a penalty to meet the situation”, he continued. The parties had broken the law. but there was great urgency, not of their making, and it appeared to him that there might have been some argument that they were not guilty of improper conduct under economic stabilisation by keeping people working.