EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITIES.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 27 November 1924, Page 7

EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITIES.

FULL AWARD WAGES. FOR PART-TIME WORK The fact that an employer .cannot employ a worker on part-time work at less than the lull award rate of wages was .stressed by the Inspector ’of Awards. Mr. O. P. Smith, at the'Ha-wt-ra Magistrate’s Court to-day, when he brought a civil claim for £2O against Andrew Laing, the proprietor of the Dominion Hotel. The claim was in respect of two breaches of the award, namely, failing to pay the wages prescribed by the award, and failing to exhibit a timetable .setting forth the working hours of each worker in his employ. The Inspector in his evidence said he inspected the hotel in question and found that a worker named Sims, who was employed as a housemaid, was getting 25s per week and doing 36 hours work per week, whereas the award specified a 48 hour week and a wage of £1 11s. Although it was stated that there was only enough work to employ a housemaid for, no more than 38 hours per week, the licensee committed,, a. breach when lie did not pay the full award wage. The Magistrate, Mr Hewitt, remarked that it did not seem reasonable that a worker employed only 3 hours a day should have to be paid the full award rate. The inspector said that that was the award and in order that unscrupulous employers did not take advantage of any laxity in this respect he was bringing the case as a warning. In this case a “general” should have been employed, who could fill in the full time at other work. Mr. O’Dea, for defendant, pointed out that Laing was really paying more than the award rate of wages. The worker in this case worked threequarters of the time specified in the award and drew more than threeouauters of the specified wages. Mr. O’Dea also stated that in cases where non-unionists were being employed in New Plymouth, the unionists were taking action because the Department had failed to do so. He contended that the Deoartment would be attending to its duty more if it took .action in such cases, instead of picking on petty proceeding® against a. man like Laing. In connection with the breach of failing to exhibit a time-table, the Inspector said that Laing had informed him that "the time-table had fallen: down a week previously. However. Laing had not been previously convicted for the same breach. For failing to exhibit a time-table the Magstrate entered judgment for 10s and lis 9d witness 7 expenses. He said he would not inflict air" penalty in respect of the other breach in connection with which there was no moral blame attached to Laing.