THE FACTORIES ACT.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1191, 28 December 1894, Page 29

THE FACTORIES ACT.

Mr Martin, S.M., delivered judgment on Saturday in the case in which E. J". Mentor was proceeded against by the Inspector of Factories for failing to allow two of his female employees a half-holiday on the 15th inst. The defence, it will be remembered, was that Mr Mentor had informed the women that they could go, and that if they remained after that he was not responsible. His Worship said he thought in this case a conviction should be entered. Section 63 of the Act provided that the occupier of a factory should allow to every woman employed in the factory a holiday on Saturday afternoon from 1 o'clock. The effect of section 68 was, he thought, to provide that a person should be deemed to be employed contrary to the provisions of the Act in each of the following distinct and separate cases : —(1) If the person is not allowed the prescribed time for (a) meals and (b) absence from work; or (2) if the person is during those times in contravention of the provisions of the Act employed in the factory; or (3) if the person being a woman or under the age of 16 is during those times allowed to remain in the factory. The Act, except under the special circumstances mentioned in section 46, did not prevent men having their meals in the factory ; but with regard to women its provisions excluded them from the factory during the time set apart for meals (see sections 44 and 45). If, therefore, a woman was allowed to remain in the factory during meal ' time she was under section 68 deemed to be employed contrary to the provisions of ? the Act. But section 68 was not restricted to meal times. It dealt with •" any part of the times allowed for meals and absence from-work." Section 21 provided

that the occupier of the factory was to give notice of what were holidays and working hours. In fixing those hours he was controlled by section 54, whilst section 63 provided that certain holidays should be allowed. He could not find any provision in the Act allowing for any " absence from work" in addition jto meal times during the ordinary working hours, and he thought therefore that the words " times allowed for absence from work " in section 68 must refer to all times other than meal times and the established working hours. If the view taken was correct, then if a woman was allowed to remain in any work-room on any of the holidays mentioned in section 63 she was deemed to be employed contrary to the provisions of the Act, and a penalty was incurred under section 65. Further, it appeared to him that an offence had been committed by a breach of the provisions of sections 54 and 55. Section 21, as already mentioned, provided that the working hours and holidays were to be fixed, and section 63 provided that one of those holidays should be Saturday afternoon. Section 54 prescribed the maximum number of working hours in each week, and -the daily hours between which work might go on. Section 55 provided for working overtime with the permission of the Inspector, and in the present instance permission was not obtained. Such permission was required not only when the intention was to exceed the hours mentioned in section 54 but also when it was to work on the prescribed holidays, otherwise the limit imposed on the Inspector by section 55 of granting permission to work overtime on not more than five half-holidays in the year would be meaningless. The defendant was fined Is, with costs.

The first prosecution under the new Factories Act with regard to accommodation for shearers has just taken place in Southland. It was brought against a runholder for not providing proper accommodation for the shearers whom he employed. It was alleged that the sleeping quarters assigned them were in a dirty place not separated from the sheep, and that he refused or, at any rate, neglected, to act upon tihe Inspector's written warning. A fine of .£2 and costs was imposed.