ALLEGED AWARD BREACHES

Southland Times, Issue 24499, 29 July 1941, Page 2

ALLEGED AWARD BREACHES

Appeal Against Decision An appeal against the judgment of the Magistrate (Mr R. C. Abernethy) in an action brought by the Southland branch of the New Zealand Federated Hotel, Restaurant and Related Trades Employees’ Industrial Association of Workers against Dorothy Paterson Ltd., tea room proprietors, last December was heard in the Court of Arbitration yesterday. Mr Justice Tyndall and Messrs A. L. Monteith and W. Cecil Prime were on the bench. Mr B. W. Hewat appeared for the appellant, Dorothy Paterson Ltd., and Mr K. G. Archer (Christchurch) for the union. Ths Magistrate, in his decision on the case against which the appeal was made, stated that six breaches of the award were alleged as follows: —(1) Employing a general hand and failing to pay her the prescribed wages; (2) employing her longer than 44 hours a week without paying overtime; (3) bringing her back to work before 11 hours had elapsed after the previous day’s duties; (4) failing to give sufficient notice of a change in the day of the workers’ half-holiday; (5) failing to supply the worker with two substantial meals daily; and (6) failing to keep a time and wages book. After traversing the evidence the Magistrate said he had come to the conclusion that the whole truth was that there were two employers of the girls at Elmwood Garden with one employer (Miss Paterson), who was not under the award, paying the wages and the other employer (Dorothy Paterson Ltd.), who was under the award, using a very substantial part of the employees’ time and paying no wages. The Magistrate non-suited the plaintiff on points two, three and five. On the others he found the breaches proved and awarded a penalty of £lO on item one, £1 on item I four and £2 on item six. APPELLANT’S CASE

Mr Hewat said in his legal argument at the hearing yesterday that the main question was whether the general hand was a worker for the company, Dorothy Paterson Ltd., and submitted that the Magistrate had failed to distinguish between Miss Paterson personally and the company. The company had been convicted for breaches relating to the general hand, but she was not on the company pay roll and was, in fact, engaged and paid by Miss Paterson personally. If breaches of the award had been committed then the proceedings should have been against Miss Paterson as the employer of the general hand. On the evidence given in the Lower Court it was abundantly clear that the general hand was working for Miss Paterson and that she did certain other wor 1 - in the nature of service for the company.

The Magistrate said in his judgment that he came to the conclusion that there were two employers, added Mr Hewat, and found in effect that when the general hand was giving service for the company she was being employed by the company. Mr Hewat submitted that the Magistrate’s finding that there were two employers was wrong and contrary to the law.

Mr Archer said that counsel for the appellant had based his arguments on ; three points. The first point was who employed the general hand, and he agreed that this was the main question. The second point was that the Magistrate had failed to distinguish between Miss Paterson and the company. From careful reading of the judgment he saw no reason to suppose that the Magistrate was under any misapprehension as far as that point was concerned. The third point made by Mr Hewat was that the conditions of the award did not apply to gratuitous service. -f, as had been alleged, the general hand had been leased by Miss Paterson ti the company it was not a gratuitous matter, but a business ’-.ransaction. Tlie Court rose before Mr Archer had completed his arguments and he will continue this morning. APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT An application came before the Court for an amendment to the Otago and Southland Carpenters’ and Joiners’ Apprenticeship Order. The amendment related to the proportion of apprentices to journeymen insofar as it affected the Southland district. An objection was raised by the union to the amendment and as no one appeared to represent the Apprentices Committee the application was adjourned sine die. Mr L. S. Alsweiler appeared for the Workers’ Union and the employers in the Southland industrial district electrical workers’ dispute and asked that the agreemnt reached in Conciliation Council be made into an award. ;

His Honour said that subject to the papers being in order the Court would make an award.