CONDITIONS OF LABOUR.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 14345, 15 April 1910, Page 7

CONDITIONS OF LABOUR.

FOREMAN OR SECOND HAND?

AN IMPORTANT DECISION.

A case of importance to bakers •• was decided by Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday. The Bakers' Union proceeded against T. Moorcraft and Son. bakers, lor an alleged breath of the award, in having paid an employee named George Arthur ordinary journeyman':; wages, instead of the usual wages' duo to a foreman, it- being contended that Arthur had been employed as foreman. This case had come before the Court some time previously, an! a case had been stated to the Arbitration Court, asking for the definition of a foreman.

The case stated set out that on October 16, 1903, the defendants dismissed their foreman, and as Arthur refused the position of foreman Moorcraft took it himself, making the yeast, setting the ferments, and giving general instructions to the second and third hands. In January, 1909, Arthur, who had been third hand, was promoted 'to be second hand. From one a.m. to 6.L : Q a.m. Moorcraft did not go to the bakehouse, and Arthur was left to supervise the baking operations, and cany out Mooreraft's instructions. Moorcraft took upon himself all the responsibilities usually devolving upon the foreman, Arthur being held responsible as second hand.

The Arbitration Court replied thai unless Moorcraft was justified in treating himself as foreman, defendants were bound to pay Arthur the wages of foreman if ho was a competent breadmaker, and if he did the work usually done by the foreman in a bakehouse. It was not sufficient for at: employer to call himself a foreman, and to say that he accepted the responsibilities of that position. He must be capable of doing the work of a foreman, and must actually do a foreman's work before he can be treated as a foreman. It was impossible for the Court to determine on the facts as stated whether Moorcraft could properly be treated as a foreman, and the magistrate will have to determine that question himself on the evidence before him.

After .Mr. A. E. Skelton (for the plaintiff) and Mr. Stanton (for the defendants) had addressed the Court, His Worship gave judgment, in the course of which he said that it was quite clear from the evidence that between the hours of one a.m. and 6.30 a.m. Moorcraft did not work in the bakehouse, but left his second hand to do the work for him. Mr. Justice Sim had said that before a man could be. treated as a foreman he must actually do a foreman's work That covered the whole point His Worship could not go behind that decision. He was bound to convict the defendants on the point, because the second hand had done the foreman's work between the hours of one a.m. and 6.30 a.m. It was not as though :his had occurred on one occasion only, is in that case it would not have been treated as a breach of the award. The practice was systematic. Moorcraft, while foreman, was continually and consistently absent, from the- bakehouse, so that Arthur was really the foreman. The defendants must be convicted, but as the point was a new one, and involved difficulty, it was not a case for a heavy penalty. A fine of 20s and costs was imposed.