UNEMPLOYMENT LEVY

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17437, 8 April 1931, Page 8

UNEMPLOYMENT LEVY

GISBORNE PAYMENT EMPLOYERS' RESPONSIBILITY Payments of the second instalment of {in' unemployment levy due oil March 1 have been handled in large numbers by the postal stall" in Gisborne during ihe past month, and the total payments made to date is in the vicinity of" 3300, a pressman learned to-day. Since March 31, nearly <OO payments have’ been received, each one carrying the penalty of 6d due tor delay extending over a month from the due date ; and a number of pavers have lound themselves involved in a further additional payment of Is for the renewal of their receipt hooks, they being unable to produce the originals. ILmv the payments on the second instalment of the levy compare with those on the first instalment it is extremely diiiicnlt to judge, for the Unemployment Act and its amendments now present a problem for the layman, and as one payer of his instalment today commented, would require the intelligence of a Philadelphia lawyer to elucidate. There are so many qualifications of the initial levy scheme, for which allowance lias to be made in. any comparison, that it is impossible to say now what proportion of the instalments due from Gisborne are outstanding. One qualification is in respect of men who have not earned a. suHivicnt sum to bring them under the levy in the three months intervening since the payment of the first instalment, and applications for exemption under this clause will have to be dealt with by the Unemployment Board before the actual number of registered workers liable for the instalment can be assessed. • A point of interest in connection with (ho unemployment levy is the. altitude of the Unemployment Board towards private employers who render themI selves liable to penalty by employing or continuing to employ men whose I payments of levy instalments are overdue. The Act sets out the dates on which the instalments are due, then I provides for one mouth’s grace, before | the application, of penalties on the individual payers of instalments, and j further gives employers a week beyond that period of grnco to ensure that i | every man on their payrolls has made j j fcimself financial in the eyes of the Act, II Where an employer is aware that a I j workman has failed to pay, and voni titmos to condone this failure for "a • period in excess of the grace given, he s i himself commits an offence under the I j provisions of the Act. The oucstion t hat j now interests both employers and work- | men is: What steps will the Dnomi ployment. Board take against private j ! employers who have, in the eves of the | Act. become liable to penalty, j. Inquiries made today elicited the I information that the Unemployment *, Boa i'd has so far given no instruct ions , ite, to how these cases will he dealt with, j and it Xi presumed that the board has a, sufficient number of more pressing problems on its hands for the present, without adding any further complieaI lions. However, the situation will be reviewed sooner or later, and employers lof labor generally are endeavoring to meet their obligations under the Act, by ensuring that instalments due to their men are paid.