AGRICULTURAL WORKERS’ ACT CASE

Northern Advocate, 21 June 1937, Page 6

AGRICULTURAL WORKERS’ ACT CASE

■ “Farmers Do Not Realise Their Obligations” ■ -S.U | ISSr,' v, ' “Unless farmers in the community take notice of the publicity ; ‘ given to this case, no dodbt we will have a crop of them appear- , ' itag before the court. Many of them do not realise the responsibility they have under , the Act,” ’ said Mr G. N. Morris, S.M., at the . WhangaTtei Magistrate’s Court to-' He was giving judgment in the-first case * heard under the Agricultural Workers’ Act, 1936. < J The inspector of - awards, Mr C. Pi : ■ Collins, laid an information that “bev tween November 15 and April 21, at Opuawhanga, J. Whatmough, being an employer and having control of a ■i" _ dairy farm on which two men were I/’ employed as agricultural workers, failed to keep a wages ahd holiday book in respect of the employment of each.”. " * ' ¥ • A fine of 30/ and 12/ costs was > imposed.

> Interviewed Inspector. t' , '% ■ •" •' ■/ • * Mr Gollins said that Wriatmough t'- had>ihterviewed him in February last , to ascertain his obligations, and had been supplied with an explanatory booklet. * Later he had visited ■ the farm, arid an adjustment had been made with' respect to the employment of one .worker, all arrears having been paid. Whatiriough said that the only other employee at that time was a . •' - • ■ . ■ .’ * :v* ’ - 7 , Irian engaged on a stumping contract. “.However, as I was leaving the . -place,” Mr Collins said, “I-was apiy proached by a Maori, who asked what wages he was entitled to receive. In- , v , _ • • p. : quirieS proved that both this man and ife his. wife had bean assisting with the I-~; milkirig for a period from seven weeks before my visit. ® jßp§ ! \.*‘Theunfortunate -factor about this case was that I was misled by the employer.' There are a fair number of farmers Who have .failed to meet their obligations under the Act, with respeet to the keeping of- a Wages and •holiday book, and, in subsequent /'cases, I will be compelled to ask for H the infliction of substantial penalties.”

Will Books be Kept? Mr L. A. Johnson, for Whatmough, whp pleaded guilty, said that he had not read of a case anywhere in the Dominion where a farmer had been charged with this' omission. “From my own knowledge of the farming community,” Mr Johnson said, “I know that such b|oks will not be kept in many instances, and that the average farmer is hot aware of his obligations,” Mr Johnson said that the Maori was actually engaged in scrub cutting; for which he was insured under a contract. Mr Morris said that he knew that many farmers were unaware of what was required, and he had spoken to several himself, acquainting them with the position. In this case the inspector had some grievance as, if the Maori and his wife had been engaged in the milking shed, he should have been so advised by the employer.