Act and Award Differ, Says Counsel

Northern Advocate, 6 December 1938, Page 5

Act and Award Differ, Says Counsel

Contending that certain terms of the Shops and Offices Act had not been published in the exhibited, award, Mr R. K. Trimmer defended Mary Coe, restaurant proprietress, when charges were brought .against her in the Whangarei Magistrate’s Court this morning.

Mr G. A. C, Adler, for the Labour Department, sought penalties for employing a male assistant under the age of 18 years after 10.30 p.m., failing to have a timetable of work exhibited in the kitchen, and failing to record correct hours of work.

Mr Adler stated that a boy aged 17 had been employed from 8 ,xm., on one occasion until 1 a.m. the following morning with a break of two hours in the afternoon. “The breaches in the two civil cases under the award were committed in ignorance by the elderly people who run the restaurant,” commented Mr Trimmer, In Act, But Not Award. “Regarding the criminal charge under the Shops and Offices Act, although the Act stipulates that male employees under the age of 18 shall not be employed after 10.30 p.m., nothing is stated ‘in the award to this effect, “These folk, being ordinary laymen, have the award in the kitchen, and interpret it to the best of their ability. There is nothing in it, however, about the male assistants.”

Defendant was fined £1 with 107costs for employing the boy after 10.30 p,m., £1 for failing to exhibit a timetable in the kitchen and was convicted on the third charge.