BREACHES CF THE FACTORIES ACT.

Otago Witness, Issue 3101, 20 August 1913, Page 10

BREACHES CF THE FACTORIES ACT.

At the Magistrate’s Court, Lawrence, on the 12th (before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.), two informations against Simpson and Hart, Ltd., were heard. The first was for paying their employees at intervals of more than a fortnight, and the second for employing two workmen (Robert Tuckcy and Thomas Sally) in their bottling business at a less rate of wages. than provided, for under the Otago and Southland Brewers’ and Bottling Employees’ Award. A £lO penalty was claimed in respect of each of these alleged underpaid workmen. Mr Hollows (Inspector of Awards) conducted the oases for the department, and Mr R. C. Moore appeared for the defendants.

On the first information defendants pleaded “ Guilty,” their counsel pointing out that this breach of the Factories’ Act was purely a technical one. A fine of 10s, with 7s costs, was inflicted.

11l the second charge the defendants claimed that they were exempted from the award, that owing to the email quantity of bottling the men cited were not fully engaged in that occupation, their time having to bo filled in with general work, such as gardening, cleaning up the yard, etc. Au agreement between the men referred to and the firm was put in to show that the bottling was done under contract. Counsel for defendants submitted that, the Arbitration Court having struck out the firm of Simpson and Hart from the order of reference and exempted it from the award, it was not competent for the magistrate to reopen, the action of that court.

His Worship, however, ruled against Mr Moore, pointing out that, oven though defendants might have been properly exempted from the award at the time of its coming into force, the Act, and also the memorandum at the foot of the award, provided for bringing them within its scope in the event of their subsequently engaging in this industry (and the evidence of Mr Hart, secretary of the company, showed that they were engaged in the bottling business). lie further ruled that the agreement put in did not help them, as it was merely a service ,agrecment and not an independent agreement which removed the workmen engaged in the business from the control of the defendants. Ho held that a breach of the award* had been established, and inflicted a fine of £1 in respect of each workman, with costs (£1 6s 2d).