BREACH OF AWARD

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18875, 30 May 1923, Page 3

BREACH OF AWARD

CASE AGAINST CITY CORPORATION. CARELESSNESS OF SUBORDINATE OFFICERS. In the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon, before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., Luke D. Browett, inspector of factories, claimed from the City Corporation a penalty of £lO in respect to each of six members of the Local Bodies Labourers' Union, for failure to nay them travelling time whilo going to their work at the Southern Reservoir. The names of the six men were as follow: —S. D. Anderson, G. Addison, C. O'Driscoll, G. Tait, A. \V. Lawrence, and W. O'Dowd. Mr Browett, in opening the case, stnted that the proceedings were (aken under the clause dealing with suburban work which provided that the corporation should pay its men for travelling to and from work at the rate of three miles an hour beyond a radius of one mile and a-half from the Chief Post Office, or, in the alternative, should pay their fares. It was, he thought, the first case of its kind, and its features wore quite unusual in that the corporation officials had obtained signatures in a manner that was very unusual. When a man applied for work at the Southern Reservoir he had to supply the answers to about 27 questions relating'to. his health, his personal affairs, and so on. He also had to declare that ho lived within one mile and a-half of the work, and that ho carno within the definition of a worker in the clause dealing with suburban work. The Magistrate: Do you suggest that theoo men made incorrect statements? Mr Browett: What I suggest is that i£ was the duty of the corporation to ascertain whether they were correct or not. The Magistrate: Do you say that the corporation should not have accepted these answers? Mr Browett: Yes. It is only done as a means of preventing the award from operating. To the knowledge of the corporation officials, these men were going backwards and forwards daily in the train, continued Mr Browett. The officials themselves travelled, by the same train. Attention had also been called to tho breach. The Magistrate: Is it, claimed that each of these workers resided more than «• mile and a-half from tho work? Mr Browett: That is so. Mr Barrowclough said that apparently these men lived outside the mile and analf radius, but the City Corporation had no knowledge that that was so. It acted in perfectly good faith, and as each of these men notified the inspector that he lived within the prescribed limit, it believed that to be the case. They now knew that some of these men made a false statement with the object of either getting a job or retaining their positions. If it was proved that these men lived outside the radius of a mile and a-half, the corporation "would have to admit that it did not pay what it should have paid and rely on the power of a magistrate to dismiss a case in which the offence was excusable. Evidence was given in turn by the six men concerned—Anderson, Lawrence, O'Dowd, Addison, Tait, and O'Driscoll. During the hearing of evidence, Mr Barrowolough produced a statement which ho himself had written out, and in which one of the witnesses (Lawrence) affirmed that in signing his engagement form he had not been misled by any corporation official. Other witnesses also stated that no persuasion had been used. O'Dowd stated that when he refused to Bign Mr Barrowclough's statement Mr M'Ourdie said that he did not want to sack any of them, and told witness that he was going to make it' hot for him. Regarding a notice posted up in October concerning the one mile and a-half limit (and whioh some of the men said they had not seen), witness said he and some others stopped work when- they saw it; but the foreman said there was' nothing in it, and told them to go ahead. Mr Barrowclough asked O'Dowd if he (counsel) had not said to him that lie "didn't care tuppence whether he signed it or not." O'Dowd said that he could not remember the incident. ii. P. Kinsman, of the Labour Department, said that he was. under the impression that Mr M'Curdie, city engineer, had not employed a man because he would not sign the declaration, and not because he lived outside the recognised radius. Louis F. Evans, secretary of the General Labourers'. Union, said that he had written to the Town Clerk pointing out thai cor-rect-suburban rates had not been paid to the workmen. Getting no satisfaction from the engineer, he again wrote to the Town Clerk, telling him that the award was being evaded and that they were taking advantage of the economic conditions of the men. Witness subsequently suggested an interview with the engineer and the Town Clerk. The interview was held, and the Town Clerk had no knowledge that the award was being evaded as it was and that the men were being*asked to sign this particular statement. There were about 50 workmen affected altogether. Cross-examined, witness said that he had refused to supply information to the Town Clerk regarding the names of the men who should have been receiving the extra rate. His reason for not supplying the names was that he did not desire to jeopardise the engagement of these men. There was no doubt in his mind that the positions of the men would have been jeopardised. Anyway the Town Clerk could have ascertained the names himself. Mr Barrowclough said that in the face of the evidence he must admit that a technical breach of the award had taken place. There was no use him denying it. If, however, the magistrate held that the breach had been excusable he might see fit to dismiss the case.

The chief inspector of works (Mr Harold King) said that he had instructed the timekeepers that they must not employ men living outisde the recognised area. He had turned down hundreds, because they did not live within the radius. With one exception he had not known where the men lived. In the case of the exception he had at once reported the fact chat the man lived outside the area. As regards O'Dowd he knew that he had been living at Burnside, and he thought that he still resided there. He had reported on all the cases and had awaited instructions. There would be about 30 men at the reservoir working under the award. His Worship said that the corporation was perfectly justified in taking up the attitude that if it could get men within the specified radius it would not go outside that radius and incur extra expense. The evidence satisfied him, however, that in the attempt to carry out this attitude some of the subordinate officers had not acted in an efficient manner, to say the least of it. The form of application was an unfortunate one. It contained unlimited questions on various subjects, and it was obvious that the average labourer would sign it as a matter of form. The document really defeated its object. A labourer looking for a job, after being pretty well exhausted by answering all these questions, would sign anything to get the job. The evidence satisfied him that the men did not appreciate what they were signing. His Worship then dealt with the declarations, and said that the signatures in themselves showed an inconsistency. The subordinates were quite aware of the position, and there was the further fact that they travelled on the train with the men. He was satisfied that some of the men knew very little about the mile and a-half radius, and fiat others would not have stuck at it if they had known so long as they got a job. He was satisfied that the corporation, through its superior officers, had not deliberately made or intended to make an attempt to create a breach of the award. The corporation, however, was responsible for its officers, but tinder the circumstances ho would take into consideration that a local body should not be unnecessarily mulcted in a heavy penalty, as there was no blame attached to its superior officers. A penalty of £1 would be inflicted in oaoh case (£6 in all). Witnesses' expenses wore fixed at 12s per day with extra expenses in the case of Anderson, who had had to come from Kaitangata.