TOO MANY BOYS EMPLOYED

Taranaki Daily News, 5 August 1932, Page 11

TOO MANY BOYS EMPLOYED

BREACH OF BUTCHERS’ AWARD. MEAT DELIVERED AT Jd A POUND. Holding that a boy named Rowe bore the relation of a servant end not of a contractor to his employer, Mr., R. W. Tate, S.M., yesterday imposed a penalty of £1 on Alex. McMullian, stock and commteaion agent, Stratford, for a breach of clause 4 of the butchers’ award at New Plymouth. Rowe had been engaged to deliver meat at- the rate of id a lb. An advertisement inserted on January 15 was the beginning of the trouble. It paid: “Wanted boys to deliver .meat. Apply Taranaki Meat Company.” Rowe and three other boys started delivering meat for the company at the rate of id a lb., with the result that the secretary of the union complained to the Labour Department that McMullian wee employing an excessive number of youths. Apart from that, however, the award, in clause 4, provided that the payment to a boy IG to 17 years of age should be £1 10s, which legislation has since reduced 10 per cent, to £1 7e. McMullian was a subsequent party to that award, said Inspector W. J. Berryman yesterday. Rowe did not sign the time and wages book and did not know whether the unemployment tax was paid from fais earnings, which were about, IQs a wek. Ho kept no record of the' meat he delivered. Concerning the contention that there was a contract the department held that in' that case there should have been a written agreement with the father, instead of which there had been merely a verbal agreement. In support of a submission that the boy was a piece-worker and not a contractor, it was pointed out that hie hours were regular—-7.30 a.m. to 5 p.m. on five days and 7.30 a.m. to noon on Saturdays. Of the four Rowe was the only boy who kept his position after the second day. Several attempts had been made to obtain the terms of the engagement, but the explanation had ween made that Rowe was under contract, a solicitor at Stratford having advised McMullian that such a contract did not come within the terms of the award. On April 28 the inspector had visited the New Plymouth shop, where the manager refused to givo him any information and said he was not aware of a contract. The boy gave his age as 10 and said that as far as he knew there was no written contract. i

The lowest weekly wages Rowe had received were 10s and the highest £1 Is, said counsel. Two of the other boys had given up the work the day they started and another had ceased the second day, leaving Rowe to carry on. It was true that an employer could make a contract apart from an award, proceeded . counsel, who referred to a decision of Mr. Justice Sim in a flax worker’s cage in -which it "’tis held that a contract worker had to attend during the regular working hours and do the work at the price stipulated and that a difference between him and a pieceworker was that the latter would have no right to complain if work were

given to other persons. It was admitted, tljat the weakest part about McMullian’s defence was' that he had-no written Contract with the boy's father, who had approved of the" arrangement for life eon. Counsel said it was questionable under the circumstances whether there had been a technical breach of the hward, but he was satisfied that had the contract been written there could have been'no proceedings by’the department. The magistrate said the essence of the case was whether the boy was up- , der the' control of those in the shop.' He thought ho was. Parties must abide, by awards while they were in force.' This award bad been approved by the majority of the butchering firms in 'the; district and the butchers must observe! its terms. ■