PENALTY IMPOSED

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVI, Issue 92, 18 March 1936, Page 4

PENALTY IMPOSED

ACTION BY DEPARTMENT. THE BUTCHERS’ AWARD. In the Alagistrate’s Court yesterday, before Air J. L. Stout, S.M., action was taken by the Department of Labour against Farland and Coy., butchers, of Palmerston North, claiming in all £IOO on two counts for alleged failure to comply, with the conditions of employment as prescribed by the AVellington industrial district butchers’ award. Mr AV. H. Cadwallader represented the Department of Labour and Air A. M. Ongley appeared for defendant. Mr Cadwallader, in outlining the cause of action, stated that the nature of the alleged breach was that defendant, an original party to the award, had compelled his employees to work for less than the minimum rates of wages prescribed therein. To make the nature of the alleged breach clear, stated Air Cadwallader, the method adopted by defendant was calculated not only to affect his employees, but to render the deception impossible of detection by the department. To that end Farland, it was alleged, compelled several employees, upon pain of the loss of their employment if they refused, to return to him each week a portion of thenwages, and that after the employees had signed the wages book for the minimum amount to which they were entitled. Such conduct constituted a breach of the award. In outlining the circumstances leading up to the decision of the department to prosecute, Mr Cadwallader stated that since May, 1934, defendant had been the subject of complaints to the department regarding the provisions of the award, so much so that between Alay, 1934, and July, 1935, tlie sum of £132 12s was collected by the department from defendant by way of short paid wages and paid by the department to various workers. In claiming £ICKI as the total penalty, the department was erv lenient, the Act providing that £ioo may be claimed in the case ot each separate breach. 011 a second charge the d' r pnrtment proceeded against Farland and Coy., for a penalty of £SO for allegedly failiiio- to pay the minimum rate of wages Jo" an employee, Edward Thomas Burke. Burke, it was alleged, while employed as a small-goodsman within the meaning of the award, was _ paid £4 6s per week instead of £0 -S bd.

EVIDENCE HEARD

E T. Burke, butcher, in evidence stated that he had received £4 3s per week from defendant. The awaru wage was £5 2s 6d. Each week he had handed back £1 3s 2d from the amount of £4 3s signed for. Cross-examined by Air Ongley, witness said lie had been in clefoiiant’s employ for three years. He had been small-goodsman for another butcher about six years ago. \Mtness detailed his duties while in defendant's employ. He received meat free from Farland, l>y agreement He denied that ihe money he handed back to Farland was for meat. G. M- Ed house gave evidence that he had paid money back to Farland after lie had signed the wages book, those amounts being for meat and toi time lie had had off due to sickness. The amounts he handed back varied from Is to £l. . Cross-examined by Air Ongley, witness said that Burke could not lie called a “first goodsman 111 view ot the nature of his duties. G. AV. Coppell, an inspector ot the department, said lie had interviewed the previous witness. . . £ Air Ongley objected to the- giving of statements made on that occasion, and the objection was sustained. A Neil gave evidence that he bad been employed as a butcher by Farland. Witness had been paid £3 os and had signed for £4 6s. Taxation ments were made. From July 25. 1934, he handed back 16s 8d a week and prior to that had handed back 31s Bd. "Witness bad to do that because lie had no option. lie could not get work elsewhere. Burke had been a smallgoodsman. Ho had made all the smallgoods. AVitness received free meat while employed by Farland. It was the usual practice of butchers to give their employees free meat. To Air Ongley, witness said ho did not thi.nk Farland was ever actually nresent when he signed the wages book.

A. Alontgomei*v, employed by Farland ns a shop assistant, gave evidence that he had been employed at first at the end of each week for nine or ten hours. He was paid £1 0s 9d for that period of work. AVitness said, in cross-examination, that he was now in receipt of £4 6s. Burke had been a general hand and not a small-goodsman. Mr Cadwalladcr said that the forms of the award were such that witness should have received over £2 a week when' employed casually. This closed the case for the department.

SU'BAIISSIONS FOR DEFENCE. In addressing the Court, .Air Ongley submitted that there had been no evidence given in regard to the first claim which brought that claim within the provisions of the section under which it was laid. It appeared that there had been ' a. purely technical breach in regard to Montgomery’s employment. . AV. E. AVotton, employed by Farland and described as the manager of the shop, gave evidence- that Burke had been employed as a “rouse-about.” AVitness did not consider Burke as a small-goodsman. AVitness, replying to Air Cadwa.llader, said lie was a partner of Farland.

E. Allow gave evidence that in the course of his calling he had become very'familiar with butchers’ shops in the AVellington province and in his opinion Burke had not been a smallgoo rsnia 11. Aliss P. Nicholls, cashier at the shop, said that Bvrtke and Montgomery had each been paid £4 6« a week for full time. AATien Alontgomeyv had been on part-time lie had been paid £1 or so. In giving his judgment, Air otout said lie was not satisfied that what Farland had done came within the meaning of the wording of the Act ns to the first claim. In regard to the second claim, it appeared perfectly clear to him that neither Burke nor Montgomery had been paid full award wages. To sav that the amounts returned were for free meat appeared to him to be absurd. It was a fairly serious breach. A penalty of £SO oil the second claim would be allowed.