CLEANING BUTCHER SHOPS

Taranaki Daily News, 19 July 1929, Page 13

CLEANING BUTCHER SHOPS

BREACH OF AWARD ALLEGED NEED FOR AMENDMENT STRESSED. MAGISTRATE ADJOURNS CASE. When a ease was brought in the New Plymouth Magistrate’s Court yesterday by the inspector of awards, Mr. G. R. A. Whiting, against a butcher, J. S. M'ilson, for employing a man after noon on the day of the statutory ha If-holiday, the need for an amendment of clause 6 of the Taranaki operative butchers’ award was emphasised. The. case was adjourned by Air. R. W. Tate, S.M., for one month to allow the master butchers to consider if the clause could be amended. The circumstances surrounding the finding of a man named Burnnand, employed by defendant, working in the shop after the prescribed hour, were explaied by Mr, Whiting, The facts were admitted by Wilson, who said the man did not come ■ under the award, as he was simply a casual labourer employed partly on defendant’s farm and partly about the shop. On the occasions in question he was cleaning up after the day’s work, which it was impossible for him to do before noon. His work was very varied. He was not a butcher, but simply a labourer, and if the award applied to him it would apply to every man in Taranaki who worked.

Although he considered the clause was unreasonable, Mr.- Whiting said, the department could administer the award only as it was. This clause was a bone of contention all over the Dominion. The award said “no person,” not “no butcher.” The butchers complained about it, but they had to do the best they could under the circumstances. The Arbitration Act defined a worker as “any person employed to do any work for hire or reward.” This man was employed to do work on the farm, as a drover, to cut up paper for the shop, boiling down, cleaning the shop, or anything of that kind, stated the master-butcher. Saturday morning was the most important time of the week. He had to clean up and take the refuse from the shop away, and if that could not be done defendant did not know how he would get on. He would soon find himself in trouble with the health officers.

He paid the man more than the award rate, as he gave him £5 17s 6d and his meat. The award rate was £4 17s 6d. If he could not employ him after noon at the shop he could not employ him at all, because that was one of the things ho particularly wanted him for. The Magistrate said that if the man was not a worker on the farm lie would come under the definition of “other workers” in the clause. The matter of cleaning up shops of this kind was a most important one. Cleanliness was next to godliness. Godliness was obedience to the law, and cleanliness came next. It seemed to him unreasonable to expect the masters to remain behind to clean their premises after business ceased for the day. The employer was the director of the business and he should not have to do the cleaning. Mr. Whiting saw the man wrapping meat when he visited the shop, and he saw the boy place some money in the till, but Mr. Wilson assured him the man was wrapping up meat for himself. The term of the award had expired and he suggested it was for the butchers to app!y°to the Court for an amendment of the clause.

The Magistrate said where a man was employed only for the purposes of cleaning up that should be encouraged from a 'health point of view. He did not see how the cleaning could be done while the business of a butcher’s shop was being carried on, and a certain amount had to be done after the premises closed for the day. “I think,” said Mr. Tate, “your suggestion that the-clause should be amender is the proper course in this matter. The award should make provision for the cleaning up of the premises after the shop closes,”