No. 10 BUILDING SCEHME

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22084, 14 October 1933, Page 17

No. 10 BUILDING SCEHME

SUBSIDY UNLAWFULLY OBTAINED CONTRACTING FIRM’S SECRETARY CONVICTED . SALUTARY PENALTY IMPOSED. '. V-C Stated by the prosecution to have “padded” time sheets so as to justify application for a subsidy under the Unemployment Board’s No. 10 scheme in respect of alterations to the premises of J. R. M'Kenzic, Ltd., in George street, Henry Sinclair Cunningham, secretary of the Love Construction Company, appeared before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., in 1 the City Police Court yesterday, and pleaded guilty to three charges of having made a false statement as to the hours and time, worked by employees of his company, for the purpose of obtaining a benefit under the Unemployment Act for J. R. M'Kenaie, Ltd. Mr J. M. Paterson represented the defendant.

Chief Detective Young explained that under Scheme No. 10 a subsidy of 33 1-3 per cent, was allowed on wages in respect of labour actually performed on the premises, but not away from' the' premises, notwithstanding .that this, latter work might have been carried out on behalf of the original contract. On June 19, 1933, application was made on behalf of J. R. M'Kenzie, Ltd., for subsidy on a scheme for alterations to the company’s shop in George street. The application, which was supported by an architect’s certificate giving details of the cost of the labour involved, was duly granted, and as the cost of the work was estimated at £2OO, the subsidy allocated was £O6 13s 4d. For the purpose of obtaining the eubsidy allocated, the defendant eubmitted thie necessary forms for the week ended July .5, 12, and 19, and signed a declaration to the effect that all labour mentioned was employed on the premises. With regard to the certificate of wages for the first week, the defendant, stated that an electrician and his apprentice had worked 40,hours each, whereas, inquiries by Detective Sergeant Nuttall showed that their actual time on the job was only two hours. In the certificate in, respect of wages for the week ended July 12, a carpenter was declared to, have worked 40 hours, whereas he had actually worked 26 i on M'Kenzie’s job. Two other electricians,, whose time was shown as 40 hours each, had done only 36 and 39 hours respectively. For the third week a carpenter was stated to have done 26 hours’ work on M'Kenzie’s premises, whereas he had not been on this job at all. Another workman, stated to have done 31J hours on the job had actually done two; one who had done 22 hours was stated’to have done 26; two were credited with 36 and 32 hours respectively, had done 16 hours- and two hours, while a plasterer, stated to have worked for 20 hours, and a labourer, whose time was declared as 20 hours, had only done two and two and^B;-half hours respectively. ' In fairness to the defendant, it should be stated that a number of men employed on the job had not been shown on the returns at all. When, however, the defendant made out hie certificates he had access to the time sheets of the various employees and had all particulars of their hours of work,' so that there was no reason why he should not have put in the correct returns. . It appears that he had completely ignored the conditions of the scheme, and the offence was viewed in a serious light by the Unemployment Board. ■ ' V

Mr Paterson, for the defence, said that the basis of the prosecution was the fact that overtime could be worked on a non-subsidy job but not on a subsidy job. After the defendant’s firm had taken the contract further work on a non-subsidy basis was undertaken on the same premises, and on account of being cramped for room, the company could not employ sufficient men on the two jobs at one time, and get them finished when required, without working overtime. It hadfto be admitted that the jobs had been mixed up, and that a proper record had not been kept of times on the subsidy and non-subsidy work, although it would be easy to prove that overtime had been worked on the non-subsidy job and none on the other. In the absence of proper records the , secretary had simply made up time sheets, and, ‘to gain the subsidy, had put in such men as he could think of, and “ padded ” forms. In respect ! of the subsidy properly obtainable, howI ever, there,. had been no loss to ,the Un- i j employment Board, for whereas the owner of the premises had received £3B only, he was actually entitled to £66 13s 4d. The company had gained nothing, and the. defendant had acted as he did simply to enable his employers to get the subsidy properly payable. Subsidy conditions were a source of considerable difficulty to builders, who were often forced to guess what to do, and the methods of the board in dealing’ with subsidies altered from day to day. Since the scheme was inaugurated last year it liad been run more or less on “ Rafferty’s ” rules, and now that it had ceased, the board appeared to be scrutinising matters it had never dreamt of looking at when it was in operation. In, the actual sense of the word there was no fraud in the present cases, for there was no gain to the Love Company and no loss to the Unemployment Board. In view of the extreme laxity and confusion that existed therefore, counsel suggested that the court might treat the cases in the nature of a warning. Chief Detective Young emphasised the fact that subsidy was to be paid only if the conditions were strictly complied

with. If they were not complied with, the applicant was not entitled to anything at all. Mr Paterson: There is probably not a job in New Zealand on which the subeidy is properly paid. The magistrate said that on the evidence before him, it was quite clear that the statements made by the defendant were absolutely incorrect, and that no attempt had been made to comply with the rules of the scheme. Under the Unemployment Act, certain bonuses were given, and employers should comply strictly with the conditions under which these bonuses were granted. He was quite unable to treat the matter in the nature of a warning. It might well be that the regulations framed by the Unemployment Board were hard to understand, and while he could appreciate that they were difficult for working men, there was no excuse for a business firm. It was perfectly dear: that the statements submitted by the defendant had been nothing more nor less than padded. On the first charge he would be fined £ls and costs ' (10s j , and on the other two he would be convicted and ordered to pay court costs. -