BREACHES BY EMPLOYERS.

Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 27 January 1926, Page 4

BREACHES BY EMPLOYERS.

PROCEEDINGS IN COURT. FINES INFLICTED. Failure to keep a. wages and timebook, to pay the award rat© of wages, and to display a copy of the award on his premises, led to the appearance at the Hawera Magistarte’s Court to-day of E. Galloway, storekeeper, of Normanby. In respect of the failure to pay award, wages, the inspector stated that- the award provided for a wage of £1 per week for the first year and £1 10s per week for the second year. Galloway had employed a lad named Ratchard tor a- term of four months over the year at a wage of £l. The deficiency of 10s per week had been paid linto the inspector’s office. Mr Brodie, who appeared for the defendant on the first two proceedings, which were classed as “civil,” and in each of which the inspector claimed £5, said that the lad was working out a debt owing by his mother. With regard to the wages and time-book, it had been kept up to August 15, three weeks later than the date mentioned by the inspector. Galloway had toldl the hoy that when the new award cam© out he would he paid the amount provided. It was merely a matter of negligence in a country shop. The magistrate remarked that the provision of the boy working to pay off the debt came near the Truck Act. It was a very risky agreement to make. A charge was laid that the defendants failed to exhibit the award. The magistrate said that for failure to pay award wages he would have to inflict more than the nominal penalty. In this respect he would give judgment for the plaintiff for £3 15s and 12s costs. For failure to keep the prescribed wages and time, book judgment for the plaintiff for £1 os with 3s costs would be entered. On the charge of failing to display on his premises a copy of the award, a fine of 10s and 16s costs would be inflicted. G. H. Horsbrugh, grocer, of Hawera., was also proceeded against by the inspector, who claimed the sum of £5 ifor a breach by defendant in keeping his shop open after hours. The inspector stated that defendant's van was discovered delivering groceries at 7 ip.m. and the driver then had four parcels to deliver. Under the Act the van was a '.shop within the meaning of the Act, and when parcels were being delivered the shop was deemed-to be open, Mr. P. O’Dea, for defendant, said that the breach was a technical one. Defendant in the box said he had not been aware that the van was out 'delivering at that time. Sometimes the driver might have his tea. before conrpleting his delivery. Any time that overtime was worked he paid time and a half.

Air. O’Dea pointed, out that there was nothing in the award to warn an employer from paying overtime. The magistrate said it was obvious that all the Act could not be contained in the award. Judgment was given against Horsburgh for 10s and 9s costs.