LABOUR.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIIIC, Issue 14210, 26 May 1910, Page 7

LABOUR.

BREACH OF DRIVERS' AWARD. At Timaru yesterday Mr Light-toot, Inspector of Awards, sued G, I. Dawson, grocer, for breaches of the Tiniaru Drivers" Award, in paying a driver, J. O'Sullivan, 30s a week iuttead of 44s —the award rate for weeks, and for omitting to pay him for overtime from March Ist, when the eward came into force, till April 2ud. JJr Emslie appeared for defendant. The hearing of tl)a case occupied nearly an hour. The facts were that the' employee had been some tin£. in defendant's employment before the award came into force on Ist March last, at 3Us per week, and lie left on April 2nd after a week's notice, to take another situation. His duties were to assist in the shop and store, and when required, usually on three days a week, to assist the carter by driving a second cart. Part of defendant's case was that- ho only required, and advertised for a, boy at 20s a week, but O'Sullivan was recommended to him. and though willing to accept 20s at the start, defendant said he could no:- oifer a young man 2Us so lie would give him 30s. A second part of the defendant's explanation, in mitigation of penalty (a slight technical breach being admitted by Mr Emslie) was that, the award was not cited by the Judge until March, 14th, and though it was made retrospective, it, would he hard to penalise a. man for breach of the- award during that part of the month when it was not realty in existence, nor for the second half, for defendant did not receive a copy of the award from the Labour Department till the end of March or beginning of April, because it had to be nrinted after it had been signed. Detendant, Mr Emslie pointed out, could not be aware of the terms of the award until he got a copy, because the terms were sett-led before the Conciliation Council by a representative of each side. In reply to this Mr Lightfoot said the agreement was made some time before, was as binding as an award, and its terms had been published in the newspapers. It was the duty of parties to make themselves acquainted with the terms of awards or agreements. Some time was spent ever the question of overtime. Defendant said that O'Sullivan always conld have been done within the hours, and if he did not- it ■was his own fault. His predecessor and his successor were always home with the cart to time. His Worship decided that overtime had not been proved.

Tile Inspector stated that at the instance of the Drivers' Union, he saw defendant and asked him to pay the arrears, and it" he had done so there would have been nothing more heard about it. Defendant said, on, tliis point, that he refused to pay for overtime, because it was the man's own fault, and because lie Lad paid him for a week's holiday, and for two other days off. one with leave and the seccouu without leave.

In reply to His Worship defendant said he would, as advised, pay the extra wages (14s a week for four weeks), and judgement was then given for plaintiff for Is without, costs.