A TEST CASE

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume I, Issue 182, 19 July 1911, Page 1

A TEST CASE

i BREACH OF THE SHOPS AND 1 OFFICES ACT.

[PER press association.]

Wellington, July 18. A case of considerable import- \ ance to employers throughout New ! Zealand came before Mr. W. G. ; Riddell, S.M., in the Magistrate’c i Court to-day. The Labour Depart-! merit proceeded against Horace J. Archer, draper, for having employ-! ed a shop assistant after 9 p.m. on ! one night during the week. The ! facts were admitted, the ea'se being . brought merely as a test as to the interpretation of the statute. Air. ; H. H. Ostler appeared for the; Labour Department, and Mr. T. i Weston for the defendant. Mr. Ostler said that sub-section ; 1 of section 3 of the Shops and Offices Act provided that shop assistants shall not be employed in or : about any shop if situated in a combined district after 1 p.m. on the afternoon ofgthe statutory closing day, or 9 o’clock on the evening of one day. or 6 o’clock on any other ’ day. The assistant in the case be- : fore the court had been employed j at 9.15 p.m. The provisions of the | Shops ami Offices Act of 1894 were that every shop had to close at a i certain hour, and every employer■ had half an hour’s grace before any j offence was committed. In 1905 | the scheme of the Act was amend-• ed, and it was no longer provided that the* shop should close at such . an hour, but that every employee ! should get off at such aii hour. Al- 1 though the Legislature changed the: ulieme of the Act, they still kept! the provision vhh-li slated that an offence was c..;,matted if an em- 1, plo.vee was worked mere (han half ’' an hour after closing time. Mr. said that two inter-’ pretations were sought to be placed; on the Act by the Department ! within ihe last two months. The; first was the limitation of the work: done away from the shop ; the se- ’ cond adopted the present position j as set, out by Mr. Ostler. If Mr. ! Ostler s- contention was correct, i and sub-seciicm 3 must Stand apart i from section 3, it would have been ; very easy for -the. Legislature to; have made that clean' ’ Rnh-sectio/U 3 said, “If any assistant ms em-! oloved at any work in connection ' with business of any shop. Surelv! those words canveyed an act done in connection with the business. If’ it was intended by sub-section ; i.hat it was an. offence for the em- ; plover not, to close his shop at 9 o clock, and send his assistants ’ away, then there was no necessity! for the sub-section. If the Legis-! lature wanted to specifically pro- . vide a penalty, and wanted sub- ■ section 3 to stand and not be modi- j find, all they required to do was to strike out the words “Later than half an hour.” The decision was reserved.