Breaches of Award Alleged Against Butcher

Manawatu Times, Volume 61, Issue 65, 18 March 1936, Page 3

Breaches of Award Alleged Against Butcher

COURT IMPOSES PENALTY OP £SO

, Action was taken by the Department of Labour in the Magistrate’s Court at Palmerston North yesterday against Allan Georgo Farland, butcher, of Palmerston North, claiming £IOO, on two counts, for alleged failure to comply with tho conditions of employment as prescribed by tho Wellington Industrial District Butchers’ Award.

Tho first count alleged that Farland had taken proceedings with intent t defeat the 'provisions of tho award, while the second alleged that defendant had failed to pay the minimum rate of wages to an employee, Edward Thomas Burke. A penalty of £SO was sought in respect of each count. Mr. W. H. Cadwallader appeared for tho department and Mr. A. M. Ongley for defendant.

Mr. Cadwallader, in outlining , the cause of action, stated that defendant, an original party to the award, taking advantage of the recent economic conditions, compelled his employees to work for less than tho minimum rates of wages prescribed therein. The method adopted by defendant was calculated not only to cheat his employees, but also to render deception impossible of detection by the department. To that- end, defendant, 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 their wages, after tho employees had signed the wages book for tho minimum amount to which they were entitled. Such conduct, it was submitted, constituted a breach of the award within the meaning of section 111 of tho Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1925.

In outlining tho circumstances leading up to tho decision of the department to prosecute, Mr. Cadwallader stated that, since May, 1934, defendant had almost continuously been the subject of complaints to the department for failure to comply with tho provisions of the award, so much so that, botween May, 1934, and July, 1935, the 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, that sum covering five breaches of the award. , In claiming £IOO as the total penalty, Mr. Cadwallader added, the department was very lenient, as the Act provided that £IOO might be claimed in the case of each separate breach. Evidence was given by Edward Thomas Burke that he had been employed as a smallgoodsman by defend ant. The award rate for this work was £5 2s, but he had been paid £4 3s only and had been compelled to hand back £1 3s. Had he not agreed to this, he would have lost his job; defendant had told him that there were plenty ot other men offering. Cross-examined by Mr. Ongley, witness said he had been employed by defendant for three years, prior to which he had been unemployed for two years. He denied that his duties had not been those of a smallgoodsman. It was correct that he had received meat free, but this was the practice in the trade. George Morshead Edhouse, at present employed by defendant, said he received £4 6s per week, but had to pay back varying amounts up to £l. This was for goods supplied and time off. To Mr. Ongley: Burke’s duties had not been those of a smallgoodsman; he had been a labourer.

Mr. Cadwallader, after claiming that the witness Edhouse was hostile, called George V’illiam Coppell, inspector of awards, and proceeded to question him regarding statements made by Edhouse, but objection was raised by Mr. Ongley and upheld by the Magistrate. Arthur Neil, of Palmerston North, butcher, said he had formerly been employed by defendant as a shopman. He had had to sign the wages book for £4 6s, but as he later had to hand back portion, he had never received more than £3 ss. He would havo lost hi 3 job had he not been a party to this arrangement. Burke’s duties had been those of smallgoodsman. W’itness had received his meat free, but this was a custom in the trade.

To Mr. Ongley: His wages had never been docked by defendant for time off. Archibald Montgomery, at present employed by Farland, said he had originally been engaged on casual work, being employed for nine or ten hours weekly at £1 0s 9d.

To Mr. Ongley: He had taken Burke's position and his duties were those of a shopman. For the defence Mr. Ongley submitted that handing back portion of the wages did not constitute a proceeding to defeat the provisions of the award. In regard to the second count, it was contended that Burke had been employed as a labourer and not as a smaligoodsman. A technical breach had apparently occurred in regard to Montgomery.

William Edward Wooton, said he to shop manager for Farland. Burke had been employed as a rouseabout and had not done the work of a smallgoodsman. Cross-examined, witness admitted that he was Farland's partner. Edwin John Arlow, company manager, deposed that he had an extensive knowledge of the butchery trade. Burke, in his opinion, was not a smallgoodsman. To Mr. G'adwallader: He did not know that Burke had previously been employed as a smallgoodsman. Phyllis Nicholls, cashier in Farland’s shop, said all employees were paid the full amounts shown in the wages book. She had seen Wootton doing work preparatory to making the sausages, but had not seen Burke doing this. Giving judgment, his Honour said it was clear that award wages had not been received by certain of the employees. , Their having to pay back some of the wages was a subterfuge, and Farland had never paid Burke more than £3 a week. The statement that the deductions were for meat supplied was only: another trick by Farland to mislead, the Court. It was a fairly serious breach. The evidence showed that Farland had gone out of his way, when ho first employed the men, to make an arrangement, by; which

they would not get award wages. It seemed that he had done that with Neil and also with Edhouse. His “Worship was satisfied that Edhouse, in giving his evidence, had not been strictly honest. On the second count, defendant would be fined £SO. In regard to the first charge, his Worship was not satisfied that what Farland had done came within the provisions of the section, and the charge would be dismissed. Costs were awarded against defendant amounting to £1 11s.