WAS THE S.M. RIGHT?

NZ Truth, Issue 750, 1 November 1919, Page 2

WAS THE S.M. RIGHT?

A case of interest to all workers came before Mr. J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., at the Dunedin Police Court on October 20, when Inspector Wake] in brought Alfred E. Brown, a Dunedin shopkeeper, before the court, charging him with a breach of the shop and Offices- Act. The inspector explained that the boy was only nine years of age and ran messages after school hours, and worked on Saturdays and during the holidays for which he received various sums ranging from 2s 6d to 4s Gel, whereas under the Act the lad was entitled to 5s per week. For the defence, Lawyer Hanlon said the boy did not come within the scope of the Act, and only during the Christmas vacation time did he do anything like a week's work. Had he been fully employed he would have worked, during the time he was with Brown, something like 2300 hours, whereas he got only 901 hours to his credit, for which he received £7 10s, when at the rate of 5s a week the amount due to him would have been only £3 10s. "The S.M. contended that the definition of shop assistant was very wide m the Act What is meant by employment? In this case the boy was not compelled to attend, and he had no regular hours. What he did could only be regarded as casual employment, and fell short of the Act's requirement. The defendant m employing him, was helping 1 the household from where the boy came, and Mr. Brown's act could riot be considered objectionable. He dismissed the information. Now "Truth" does not see eye to eye with the S.M. It is quite true the hoy had no regular hours, but that is not the point The Act was framed to prevent exploiting of labor, particularly that of youths and girls, and though the defendant may not have deliberately set himself out to override the Act, it is clear the Magistrate's decision leaves a loophole for others to dispense with regular labor and employ children of tender years at a wage lower than the Act stipulates. Regarding the S.M's remark that the thing was not objectionable, and that the boy was helping the family from which he came, the sitting Magistrate apparently overlooked the fact that had somebody else's boy been employed at the wage the Act demands, he would have beenhelping a family far more substantially than the lad whose payments varied from 2s 6d to 4s 6d. And if "Truth" opines correctly this was the reason the information was laid by the Labor Department.