PITY THE EMPLOYEE.

NZ Truth, Issue 106, 29 June 1907, Page 4

PITY THE EMPLOYEE.

KIRKCALDIE AND STAINS FINED. ,\sK.

L The tendency of wealthy firms to overlook their employees was jumped on by the Inspector o£ Factories recently, and yesterday ux. McAr-r thur found against the firms. The case, Lindsay, Inspector of Factories v. Ki'rkcaldie and Stains, was an information laid against the big firm for unlawfully employing three female assistants for more than five hours continually without an interval of at least one hour for a meal, contrary to the provisions of the Shops and . Offices Act, 1904, and its , amendments. It was admitted by the defence that the assistants were employed, for wore,' than five hours as . statefl. Section, 4, sub-section 1 of the Shops and; Offices Act, 1904, provides thajj a shop assistant shall not be employ^ ed as already stated. The defendantclaimed to ' be working under a recommendation pf the Bpard, dated 1 October 26, and relied on paragraph 2, m .which it said that "subject to the provisions of the clause next succeeding each employer shall be at liberty to fix the hours according to the requirements of his business." This clause, m the opinion of the Magistrate, referred only to hotels. It follows the rate of pay in' the hotels, and also the hours and board and lodging of hotel workers. Next came restaurants, oyster saloons, and tea robms m that order. The Magistrate did not consider that there was any conflict between th£ recommendation . and the Shop 1 ; ,Jihd Offices Act. Ah employer intent ba at liberty to fix his hours, but not m such a-, way as to'vbvet-ride such a clear provision as contained m section 4, sub-section lc. He is not bound to give the one hour at any, particular -time, but might fix it .so lons as he did hot work the em- ' playees continuously for more , than five hours without ah interval of M; 'I^'ast one hour for a .meal. Foe i hese two reasons he cdnsidered the information must be sustained. T^a defendant was fined 40s, with costa £3 18s. -;. V