A FACTORY DEFINED.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 8 February 1928, Page 9

A FACTORY DEFINED.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION. ' MECHANIC’S CLAIM FAILS. The definition of a factory within the meaning of the Act was referred to by Mr, o. S. Barton, S.M., in the Hawera court to-day, when in disposing of a claim made by J. H. Vowless against the Hawera Transport Company the Magistrate gave Ins reserved decision in favour oi the company. The plaintiff, who was employed by the company as a motor mechanic' from March 17 to July 29, 1927, had asked the court to award him a sum alleged to be due for overtime worked during the period. •‘The issue lor determination has been narrowed by agreement between counsel to a single point,” said the Magistrate. “It has been agreed that if the premises where the business of defendants was carried on at Hawera, and where the plaintiff worked, was a “factory” within the meaning of the Factories Act, 1921, there is due to plaintiff the sum of £‘B 10s 7d, wbilst if such is not a ‘factory’ the defendants owe nothing to plaintiff.” In his finding of the facts the Magistrate said it had been proved that the business of derendants, F. L. Ashbolt and O. R. Prouse, trading in partnership as the Hawera Transport Company and managed by H. Barnett, was that of carriers, and that the premises containing the workshop in question was the Hawera terminus of the regular run of the company’s lorries, three of which were kept on the road while one was in the workshop for repair and overhaul. The primary and main use and object of the workshop and the operations carried on were the keeping in repair and a state of running efficiency of the fleet of lorries. 'there was no lathe and no mechanical power in the workshop, band power and hand tools only being employed. In the period of the plaintiff’s employment certain work outside the primary and main use of the workshop had been undertaken. A ear was taken in, brakes and clutch adjusted, and some work done- to the engine. This ear belonged to a friend of the manager, and the work was undertaken for reward on the usual basis as a favour. A motor-cycle received repairs or adjustment to its gear-box, some repairs were done to a pussh. bicycle, and a car belonging to tbe manager was fixed up after having been damaged in a road accident. At least two persons were employed in the worksiiop Giving attention to the Factories Act, 1921, the Magistrate .said that section two provides a statutory definition of “factory” under several alternate headings. The part that covered the present case, if the premises came within the meaning of the definition at all, was contained iu the words: “ ‘Factory’ means any building, office or place in which two or more persons are employed directly or indirectly in any handicraft or in preparing or manufacturing goods for trade or sale.”

The first point raised by counsel on the construction of that definition was whether the qualifying words “for trade or sale” governed the words “preparing or manufacturing goods” only, or whether they governed also the words “in any handicraft.” “I am clearly of the opinion,” continued Mr. Barton, “that the words in question govern all that precedes them. In my opinion the terms ‘in any handicraft’ and ‘in preparing or manufacturing goods’ are complementary, and are intended l to embrace between them all operations in which the operatives may require the protection of the Act. I think it is only where the operation is carried on for trade or sale 1 that the premises devoted to the operation are to be classed as a factory, and if that and the other conditions are fulfilled it matters not whether the operation is performed by simple hand work or by machinery. " “The other construction would, in my opinion, lead to absurdity, for the words in question are clearly words of limitation, and operatives amongst machinery would, on that construction, receive a more' limited protection than those engaged on simple handwork. All handicrafts would be protected, and their workrooms declared factories even though they worked for, say, private owners of libraries and art treasures, whilst operatives of machines installed by such owners for such purposes and the workshops where they were employed would be outside the definition. “Applying the statutory definition so interpreted to the premises in question. I am of opinion that the workshop was not a factory. Firstly, I find that the work of oiling, tuning, adjusting and repairing veil ices of the employer to keep them efficient for his work as a carrier is not work done for trade or sale. . . . Secondly, I am of

the opinion that the jobs described in the finding of the facts are not, taking into account the circumstances under which, they were undertaken, sufficient to alter the character of the workshop. They formed a negligible portion of the work done during the plaintiff’s employment. They were done without the instruction or knowledge of the employers and in the cases of the two cars—only items to be serious! v considered —the real object of takin.cr tlic work in seems to have been extraneous to tlic interests of the employers. ’ ’ Judgment was given for defendants, who were allowed costs amounting to £7 4 S dd. At the hearing of the ease Mr G. J. Bayley appeared for plaintiff and Mr B- Malone for defendants.