EMPLOYERS FINED.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 24 October 1924, Page 4

EMPLOYERS FINED.

BREACHES OF AWARD. A warning to employers that they must observe the provisions of the law; governing the particular industries in which they are engaged was issued at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, when several persons were fined as the result of charges brought against them by the Inspector of Factories (Mr C. P. Smith). The inspector claimed the sum of £lO from Francis W. Gillanders as a penalty in respect of each of two breaches of the award, namely, by paying an employee named King less than the award rate of wages and paying an employee named Frederick less tftan the award rate of overtime. The inspector said that on August 29 the matter of the wages and overtime had been mentioned to defendant, and he had been quite agreeable to pay up the arrears. The arrears had since been paid, but nevertheless no move had been made in that direction until attention to the award had been drawn by the department. Mr Houston, for the defendant, said that King was an old man of about 60 years of age, and was only doing minor jobs. If the award rate of £4 P er had to be paid Gillanders would have to obtain the services of an abler man. Unfortunately an underrate- permit had been refused. Mr o‘Dea, for the employee King, said his client realised that Gillanders: was doing him a good turn by giving him a job at, the money paid him prior to the inspector taking the matter up. In; the case of the overtime the inspector said that Frederick had been paid at the rate of 2s per hour instead of 2s sd, but this had been dorie in ignorance. Mr Houston said that in all Frederick had only been 2s 8d short. The Magistrate said that everyone should know the awards that governed his industry, and he would have to make an example of the cases brought before him. Judgment would be for the amount of £3 and costs in each case. ■ A charge of employing an assistant alter 2 p.m. on each working day of the week ending August 23 was pre- ■ a gainst F. H. Ollerenshaw. The inspector said that the waitresses employed by defendant worked shift 6, and when one went off at 12.30 p.m., but returned at 6 p.m. to work until 10.30 p.m., a breach of the award, which provided for a halfholiday in the afternoon, had been committed. Defendant had been fined in February last for employing an assistant after hours. A fine of £2 and 7s court costs,, with costs of prosecution 46 6d, was imposed. ~ • Charges of failing to keep a wages and time book were made by the inspector against E. O’Reilly (Mr Matthews), Wilson, Canham and Co., A. Cormack and W. O’Callaghan. In the case of E. Olßeifly the inspector said that the meagre entries in the wages and time book were - absolutely useless when it came to checking the time worked and the wages paid. Mr Matthews, for O’Reilly, said that there had been no intention on the part of defendant to evade his obligations under the award, and he asked for leniency,. A fine of £1 and 7s court coets, together with prosecution costs 4s 6d was inflicted. A written plea of guilty was submitted Jby Wilson, Canham and Co. The inspector said that entries were also .inadequate in this case, and the Magistrate fixed the fine at £3/ 7s court costs and 4s 6d prosecution expenses; When the case against A. Cormack was called Mr- Horner, for, defendant, flaid that the case had been dealt with in error by justices last Thursday, when a fine of 5s and 7s court costs had' been inflicted. The book had not been kept in the prescribed manner owing to the fact that the employee concerned had not been employed full time. The Magistrate decided on a fine of £2, 7s court coets and 4s 6d prosecution costs. The inspector’s evidence in the cash against W. O’.Callaghan was to the effect that no entry had- been made in the wages and time hook since November 26 last. When approached O’Callaghan . had said that evidently his clerk had failed to keep it, but the inspector pointed out that it was the employer’s duty to see that the hook was kept. , ■ ( , A fine of £3 10s, 7s court costs and 4s 6d prosecution costs was imposed.