BREACHES OF AWARD.

Timaru Herald, Volume XCIV, Issue 14364, 9 February 1911, Page 6

BREACHES OF AWARD.

SUITS FOB PENALTIES. (Before Mr V. G. Day, S.M.) In the Timaru Magistrate's Court yesterday morning Mr V. G. -Day, p. ii. T was occupied for nearly an hour in hearing cases arising out of hreaches o\ Arbitration Court awards. f A SHEARER FINED. On the information of the Inspector o" Factories, J. Brcen, a shearer reasing at Kerrytown, was charged with absenting himself from ivork on Dec. l~tii at "the Ashwick station shearing shed, without leave from his employer, W. F. Hamilton. Defendant was represented by Air fa. G Raymond, who' urged that there were - extenuating, circumstances, as Ereen liad an engagement to go to another shed. Owing to bad weather wcrk at Asliwick bad lasted longer than was expected, but before he left i Ereen put another man on jn _ his piace. Mr Hamilton had declined, however, to take this man on. His. Worship gave judgment for p aintiff, and inflicted a fine of £1 and costs. It was one of the risks a shearer took, he said, when lie undertook to work at a shed, that wet weather might delay operations. He could understand that in this instance the man Breen wished to keep his time fully occupied, but still, when making engagements, he should endeavour to prevent them from clashing. Mr Lightfoot explained that' Breen had committed a breach of the Canterbury Shearers 1 Award, and the case had been brought up to serve as a lesson to many shearers T'ho had absented themselves without leave. It was an offence that afifoetc-d not only the employers, "but also the other employees. HOTELKEEPERS AT FAULT. 31. O'Meeghan, represented by Mr z. G. Raymond, was charged as licensee tlie Oid Bank Hotel, with employing C. Brosuahan as cook during the months of A ugust, September and Oc-to-1e- and only paying her £1 7s (3d a week instead of £1 10s, the award rate for cooks. The same defendant was further charged that he did employ A»av Ilyder and Jessie Douglas for over Co hours per week, and iajled to pay'them overtime as required by the award. Pemdtic-s of £lO each were ciaimed in each case.

| Mr Lightfoot, Inspector of Awards, ! that whon he visited the notel 1 defendant admitted that he was only I paying Miss Brosnahan £1 7s 6d a . wtek. Ho believed that the wages had 1 keen made up since. Jessie Douglas gave evidence tTiat she had beeu employed at the Old Bauk Hotel as housemaid and waitress. She hed to start every morning at 0 o'clock and remain on duty till 7 p.m., except ct. Wednesdays, when she finished at *? p.m., and on Saturday afternoon she vsed to get two hours off. Questioned a- to what time was permitted h-er for r-cals. witness said that she used to grt them when she could. They would tike up at the most two hours a dav. His Worship. "Probably you could not count that. The award says that a clear hour must be allowed for each meal."

Witness continuing, snid that Miss P.Tder had to work even longer hours than herself. In answer to Mr Kay-

mond fche denied that her specified I'cura of work wore G a.m. till 8.30 a m., 9 a.m. till li p.m., and 4.30 p.m. t-.; 7 j).in. boforo tin' inspector niada h vi>i;.

To Mr ljif;]iUoot: The hours of v/ork were nr.t. ' v lijiiigtd until alter the Inspector's visit, and then tliov had to rush to get the work thin ugh* To His Worship: So extra hstndft employed after the Inspector's visit.

Mr Raymond s.iid (hat it would b-i shown in regard to tho charge for to prn* overtime thai tho Old l%>nk was a .small hotel, and the two girls had only a Mimll amount of work to do. They had boon engaged as general servants, and tho award allowed thom to bo clarsod as such wh&po only two wore employed, M!r O'Meeghan had however, increased Miss Brosnnfcan's wages to 30s a week when Sir Lightfoot advised him to clo so. His Worship pointed out that even vera one of the girls engaged as a Mineral servant she must receive cook's uages, if her duties were thoso of a rook. From the evidence it was clear that Miss Brosnahan did the cooking. The defendant said that then* were only throe boarders in his hotel, and tho meals were generally in the middle of tho day. Miss JJrosnahan was eng:»£pd as a general servant; and he jk.'.id her 2os a week until the Injector iw.'vised him to pay her 30s. When Miss Jirosnahan went: on a holiday Miss liouglas was employed for four weeks to look after the dining-room, and upstairs work sometimes. He paid her £1 week, and Miss livder received the same tiLi sho x-emiixtranly took Miss lirosnahafl'a plnoo as cook, when she was paid AGs a week. Thoy worked the same hours before the visit of the Inspector as at present, and they r.erer needed to work over 65 hours a week.

In giving, judgment His Worship said that the breach in regard to Miss JJrosrahairs employment as cook was not. on© for a heavy ppnaltv, and ho would g?vo judgment for the plaintiff for 10s. I * regard to the working of overtime thf- charge would l>e dismissed, it' the two girls worked more time thnn tliey should have, they were ,partly to blame themselves.

J. Riley was also defended by Mr JGaymond, -when charged as licensee o the Melville Hotel, with failing to pa> Nellie Fleming and Jessie Hunter employed as cooks, the wages required by tho award. Counsel said that the arrears had since been paid to Miss Hunter, but Miss Fleming had gone out of the district. The offences were admitted. Defendant, questioned hy Mr Lightfoot, said lie had not paid Miss Hunter's arrears until she had gone to a solicitor. He had made no effort to fnd Miss Fleming. Mr Lightfoot asked for a heavy penalty in connection with defendant's failure to pay Miss Fleming the wages required by "the ward. His "Worship inflicted a penalty of £3 on this charge, and said ho would inflict no nenalty in regard to Miss Hunter's case.