A NIGHT PORTER'S HOURS.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXIX, Issue 133, 28 July 1911, Page 3

A NIGHT PORTER'S HOURS.

CLAIM POP, OVERTIME KAILS. M r, PI. S. Fiixhorliiert, S.M., gave judgment at New Plymouth on Tucsdav in the case in which Leonard Agis. r Nm rlv ni d't nartar at the Imperial Hotel, sued Walter Little, the licensee, tor -to K>s Jd for overtime worked at the rale of ninepence per hour. The ease was heard last Tuesday, and legal argument on Fiiclay, .Mr Jlntchcn

appearing for the plaintiff, aiui Mr Jmmstoue for. tho uefelidant. la giving fiis decision, -Mr I‘itziieilicrt said the plaintiff had asked the Court to believe that he had entered into a very extraordinary contract with the defendant. According to him, he was to start work at 9.45 each night and knock off when he had finished his work. How any employee could enter into conti act like that he was unable to conceive. An expert porter, lie pointed out, might do the work required in two or three hours and then leave off; whilst a la/A or incompetent man, might prolong the work until two or three o’clock in the afternoon, and then claim payment for overtime. Hie magistrate could not believe that such • i contract had bean entered into m bids case. The plaitilf, ho continued, iuul produced a diary >n which ho laid entered the unmoor of hours he claimed to have worked. He noted that the time of starting work iicvci varied, hut there was a variation m the hour of knocking off. But any man could got a book and make up a diary. These were practically the only entries in the book, and they were all written at tho same angle, with the same pencil (a rather peculiar one), for two months. The paper was nice and crisp, without a dog s ear” in it, and the entries bore every appearance of having been written up .it '.one time. A book like that was of no value in evidence. In his opinion, the entries wore not genuine, but

laid been written up since. There was another thing taut showed txiat the contract alleged had never been made was that every fortnight the olaintiff had taken his wages as jicr agreement, without saying a word about overtime. Ten o’clock at night was a reasonable hotir for a mgnt porter to start work, and defendant hud said the hours of work were to bo from 10 p.m. to 9 a.in., the poitei being allowed two hours off for meals and rest. The Shops and Offices Act provided that tho employes should have at least half an hour off m every live hours, so the plaintiff would ho prevented from working for at Hast one hour. Little’s version of the contract was a reasonable one, and could be accepted as the one probably entered into. His Worship held that the contract entered hifo was for a nine hours’ day, giving a 63 hours’ week, while the Shops and Offices Act provided for 62 hours, it was no breach of the Act if it had boon arranged that plaintiff should work this extra hour a week, for it was only stipulated that overtime so worked should not exceed three hours iu one week or 90 days in a year. He did not consider there had been a breach of tho Act. Even if there had boon this would not have entitled plaintiff to sue, although it might have enabled tiie inspector to have the person guilty of the breach punished. As to the extra hour a week, if it was worked—and this Little did not deny

—could the plaintiff recover? His Worship did not think so, because a condition precedent to that was that notice should have been given within a prescribed time to the inspector Tile Act did not say who was to give this notice, hut presumably the employee. As no notice had been given, die plaintiff was precluded from claiming for the overtime. Having decided on those facts, it was unnecessary lor him to go into the question of waiver raised by counsel. Plaintiff would bo non-suited, with costs a guinea.

Mr Hutchen asked for leave to appeal, and His Worhsip replied that he thought the matter too trifling for that.

Mr Hutchen said it was a question of importance to a large number of people, but the S.M. thought that the' hearing should end the litigation in a matter of tins kind, involving only a few shillings. There was no reason to involve people in an expense of £2O or £2o about such a matter, in fact, a case of this kind might well have been settled under , the equity and good conscience clause of tlie Act. He refused to allow leave to appeal.—“ News.”