AN OLD MAN'S WAGES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18041, 16 March 1922, Page 7

AN OLD MAN'S WAGES.

LESS THAN AWARD RATE.

COMPANY FINED £5.

A penalty of £5 for having employed a trimmer at less than the award rate of wages was imposed on the New Zealand Paper Mills, Ltd. (Mr. Terry) by Mr. E. C. Cutten, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday. A claim for a penalty of £10 was made by the inspector of factories. A formal jjlea of not guilty was entered.

Mr. Lightfoot said the company .had employed the man, J. as a trimmer since last May, and paid him only Is an hour instead of Is 10d, as provided under the award. Tho company had asked the man to apply for an under-rato worker's permit, as he was an old man. There was no complaint regarding his work. Stow, in spite of his years, was an active man, and considered he could do all the work required. Mr. Lightfoot said he did not think it was altogether the company's fault. It was the works manager's. The company had been previously prosecuted for a similar offence. When Stow refused to apply for the permit he was dismissed.

Evidence was given by the enginedriver under whom Stow had worked, and by Stow. Cross-exnmined, the latter Baid he was 67 years of age. He had applied for work last March, and had been put on sorting paper, which was piecework, but was only so employed for four or five days, being put on other work. Then he was asked to relieve another man, a trimmer, who had injured his knee. Witness had been injured in an accident some years ago. Mr. Terry admitted a technical breach. As it was thought the injury to the other man was not serious Stow had been put on temporarily in his place, but the man did not come back. Stow had relieved an underrate worker, who was a younger man. Under-rate permits had been granted before, and nothing had been said the department to the company. Counsel also referred to the fact that till two years ago there had been no trimmers in such a mill. Mr. Lifrhtfoot said that never since the award came into force had the company paid award rates to trimmers. The magistrate said it did look very much as if the wages had been fixed at ratos with which the employers did not agree. That made the offence very seriouß. He did not wish to place that construction on the breach. The employers must pay the award rate. The penalty was fixed at £5 and costs £1 15a.