THE SHOPS AND OFFICES ACT

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXIII, Issue 13716, 5 April 1905, Page 5

THE SHOPS AND OFFICES ACT

At the, Magistrate’s Court, yesterday, before Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M., G. R. Fail, fishmonger and refreshmentroom keeper in High Street, was charged that, being a shopkeeper within the meaning of the Shops and Offices Act, 1904, he did work Ethel Sincox, Gertrude Treasure and Mary Halligan,- his shop assistants, for more,.than 52 hours in one week, contrary to section 4, clause Aof the said Act. Another charge was preferred against the same defendant that he did work David Forbes, his shop assistant, for mor<i than 52 hours in one week, contrary to the provisions of the same Act. Mr Stringer appeared for the Labour Department, and Mr Harper for the defendant. In reply to the Magistrate, Mr Harper said that the facts were admitted, but it was the question of law that had to be decided. He would like an amendment made in regard to the evidence of David Forbes, who, as shop manager, received £3 10s a week, as well as board and lodging.

The nx-st question to decide, Mr Stringer contended, was whether a restaurant was a shop within the meaxxing of the Act or not, and whether consequently the assistants concerned were shop assisants. In his opinion, it was quite clear, that a restaurant was a shop within the meaning of the Act. Mr Harper had made a point of section 3 of the Act, but such section, Mr Stringer held, showed that a restaurant .was a shop. For the particular pux-pose of early closing, section 3 defined x-estau-rants as shops and excepted them from the provisions of the section. In sections 15 and 19, similar inferences were apparent in the matter of the half-holi-day question; a refreshment-room keeper was cleax-ly a shopkeeper, and liad the same exemptions in regard to choosixxg the half-holiday for his assistants as lishxnongers, confectioners and fruiterex-s. In the matter of the hardship imposed on defendaxxt, as outlined by his counsel, Mr Stringer contended that such did not exist, as defendant should not bo allowed to woi’k his employees longer than any other employer. Although the Act allowed the restaurant-keeper, fishmonger and confectioixer to keep open longer hours it did not authorise them to work their the same number of hours. Section 4, which contained a general prohibition, applied to all shops. Defendant had, xn some of the cases, worked his employees up to seventytwo hours a week, ixxstead of fifty-two hours—-certainly very much beyond what could be detuned a reasoxxablo limit.

Mr Harper submitted, in reply, that express provision would have been made had it been desired to bring refresh-ment-room keepers under the Act the same as shops. The sections quoted did not relate to. refreshment rooms in regard to special provisions. He contended that refreshment-room keepers were only brought within the meaning of the Act the same as hotelkeepers—for. the purpose of giving the statutory half-holiday to employers. A-s to the position of Forbes, Mr Harper held that Forbes was an “occupier” as defined by the Act, and not an assistant.

Mr Stringer said that G. R. Fail employed the labour, and not Forbes. In reply to the Magistrate as to whether he had any mitigating circnmstances to state, Mr Harper said that since the previous Tuesday his client had employed more labour, but the result had been the cutting down of the wages of some other of the employees.

In the matter of the informations, the Magistrate pointed out,that in one case they had been laid collectively. If he convicted, however, it would bo in one instance only.

Mr Stringer replied that the practice was that followed in arbitration and police cases. Mr Harper took no objection to the manner of the informations.

Mr Bishop said that; according to a case he had recently road, and recent definitions on the point, he was not-at all certain whether separate informations were not necessary. The breach had been admitted in the present case, and it was a very bad one on the face of it, for soventy-two hours a week was too long to work any employee. He would give his decision that day week, and also stipulate the penalty ■pvhero guilt had been admitted.