DISPUTES OVER WAGES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20333, 14 August 1929, Page 14

DISPUTES OVER WAGES.

WAIHI BUTCHER SUED.

COURT UPHOLDS ONE CLAIM.

[UY TELEGRAPH. —OWN CORRESPONDENT.] WAIHI, Tuesday. A claim for tho difference between the

wages of a first and second shop-hand for a period of over 20 weeks, a total of £l4 15s Bd, was mado by David Carnaclian, an ex-employeo, against Samuel Tanner, of Waihi, in tho Waihi Magistrate's Court to-day. Mr. J. B. Beeche appoared for plaintiff and Mr. C. J. Garland, of Thames, for defendant.

Evidence showed that Carnachan drew £5 5s a week, whereas tho wages of a first shop-hand were £5 17s 6d. He was in tho shop all day and was tho only ono that was, but Eric Radford, another employee, who received £6 a week and perquisites, assisted in tho afternoon, though most of tho time he was on the round or doing other work outside the shop. Tanner claimed that ho regarded Radford as his manager, and this was supported by other evidence. It. was admitted, however, that Tanner had secured Radford's services from another butcher by paying him a larger wage, and also that Radford brought extra business with him.

Mr. F. W. Platts, S.M., in giving judgment for plaintiff for the full amount claimed, with costs £6 9s, said tho fact that Radford got more money was no doubt duo to his bringing in more business. Carnachan was in tho shop all the time, and was thcreforo the first shophand.

In another case, Herbert Goe, another ex-employee, claimed from Tanner £2 3s 6d, alleged to bo due for overtime, and £3 2s 6d for travelling expenses. He was. non-suited. Gee came from another town to work for Tanner, but was not long in his employ. The magistrate stated that tho award was silent on the matter of expenses and as no agreement had been mado this claim would fail. Similarly tho other claim would havo to fai], as Geo had signed for his wages each week, and had jiot brought up tho matter of overtime until ho was leaving. Defendant bad not therefore had a chance to verify his claim and to succeed Geo would havo to prove very conclusively and distinctly that tho money was owing. This ho had failed to do. Costs £1 13s 6d were allowed against plaintiff.