FACTORY DINING-ROOM

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 16914, 1 April 1929, Page 12

FACTORY DINING-ROOM

REGULATIONS IGNORED MAXIMUM PENALTY IMPOSED ! Although hi' had Ivon warned or !several occasions that t.: ■ dining-room I .im-mmtHiation at ah factory was not frot he satisfaction mi the Laboi DoI parlmeni *s inspector, Philip Schnoideman did nor comply with me demand* of the department, with the result that he was prosecuted in the Mu^i-tr:-:.'V Court at Wellington for t;na«:. to furnish the room to the inspect. .", satisfaction. .Mr. W. J. Mouutjoy, inspector of j factories, stated that the factory was registered on April I of last year. | amt the defendant, in his application, | said that he had Id!* female employees. | The premises were inspected in -May j and a loiter was sent to defendant in:orming him that the diningroom accommodation was inadequate, and that more tables and seats should be placed in the room. Correspondence passed between the -Department and defendant. the latter pointing out that some of the employees chose to eat their meal in the workroom. On October -!* an inspection was made, and it was found that there was seating accommodation in the diningroom for twelve persons only. This was again pointed out to defendant, who replied that many of the employees went out to lvmeh or went home for it. The workers were questioned as to why they did not go into the diningroom for their meal, and they replied that, there was insufficient accommodation. A few of them, however, did say that They preferred to meal in the workroom so as to do extra work. On November 3 a further requisition was sent to defendant ordering him to provide sufficient accommodation. Later it was found that nothing had been done. When the case was called in the court on March —f an inspection was made and still there were no extra tables. 1 nder the circumstances. continued Mr. Mountjoy. he would ask for a heavy penalty. On Wednesday last he had received a letter from defendant stating that additional tables had been put in, and a hurried inspection showed that there was now seating accommodation for 44 and table accommodation for 54. Council for defendant. Mr. A. W. Fitrhorbert. contended that his client had Installed extra seating accommodation. but the employees had refused to take advantage of'the additions, so he took them away again. A: no time had he attempted to evade his obligations under the Act. At the conclusion of the case the magistrate remarked that the defendant seemed to have made unreal effort to coraplv with the requisition of the inspector until after the case bad been called. A penalty of £lO and costs —the maximum penalty for one offence —was imposed.