PENALISING AN EMPLOYEE

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 114, 19 June 1914, Page 5

PENALISING AN EMPLOYEE

FIRM FINED FIVE POUNDS.

A case of much interest to all employers of labour, especially those who have Territorials working for them, came before Mr T. A. B. Bailey, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court this morning.

Oliver Stewart Pennecuik and John William Francis were charged with an offence under the Defence Act, in that they penalised an employee who had to attend camp. Mr Raymond explained that the prosecution was being brought under section 57 of the Defence Act, 1912, which provides that a fine of £2O may be imposed when any employer prevents his employee from attending camps or rendering any part of his personal service, or in any way penalises an employee for attending parades or camps.

Th» facts were that at about the end of February Cowan M'Laughlan was employed by the firm of Francis and Pennecuik as a cabinetmaker. On April 10 he received notice from the Department to attend the camp at Kowai, and in due course he attended, first showing the notice to Pennecuik, who made no comment. When he came back from camp he found his place filled.

Mr Baymond asked for a heavy penalty, saying that the Department regarded the offence as a serious one. Cowan M 'Laughlan said that he went into defendant's employ in February, 1914. They were shop-fitters. On Friday, April 10, he received notice to attend the annual camp at Kowai. He gave this notice to Pennecuik, who made no comments although he read it. "Witness subsequently went to the camp. The union rules provided that two hours' notice should be given on either side desiring to terminate the agreement. On Monday, May 24, after coming back from camp, he went to work as usual, hut Francis told him he had no work for him for a while. Later, ho told him that as he'd been away in camp he could not expect to have his position held open for him. Witness asked Francis if he thought it was fair, but he replied that the other man who had come on in his stead could not be put off. Francis also said he had no' sympathy with the scheme. Witness told Francis that there were other men who had been taken on since he was at camp and defendant admitted this. Witness was paid for the time he was in camp and for two hours in lieu of notice.

To Mr Cuningham: Witness knew he was taken on originally as a casual hand. He did a special class of work. Mr Cuningham called attention to sub-section 2 of section 57, which puts the onus on the emploj'er to show that the employee was not dismissed because

he went to camp. He thought that he would be able to satisfy his Worship on that point. M 'Laughlan was merely . a casual worker and his time of employment had previously been broken whea he was away grass-seeding. White M 'Laughlan was away a big rush _of business set in and temporary hands" Sad to be employed. When he returned Lha rush was over and there was no work for M 'Laughlan. John William Francis, shop-fitter and defendant, said he employed sometimes as many as twenty-five hands. It was essentially a business that came -infits and starts. Originally witness had gaged M'Laughlan on a casual basis. He was a hand whose work had to b® , picked for him as there were jobs was not competent to do. When h® came back from camp there was no work, and if he could possibly hare* found some for him he would have don® it. *' To Mr Raymond: M'Laughlan was a good worker. He had said he had ne. sympathy with the meaning.;-, the Territorial scheme which took away four men at a time from his works. . Mr Bailey, in giving his decision, said that he thought that if the man had. - not gone to camp he would have been kept on. He was satisfied that there, was a breach of the Act. Defendant firm would be lined £5 with costs.