UNEMPLOYMENT

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19577, 25 August 1933, Page 4

UNEMPLOYMENT

BREACHES OF ACT PROCEEDINGS IN POLICE COURT. The activities of South Canterbury officers of the Unemployment Board resulted in the appearance of a number of defendants before Mr C. R. OrrWalker, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday, when cases concerning alleged breaches of the Act were dealt with. “Negligence.” Richard Ernest Colwill was charged with failing to deduct the emergency unemployment charge from the wages of an employee. He was further charged with failing to pay the charge within three days of its deduction. Defendant pleaded guilty to the first charge, but said that he did not understand the procedure regarding the other. He admitted that in the first instance it was negligence on his part. Douglas Smith, inspector for the Unemployment Board, said that £3/13/had been needed to put the book right when he carried out an inspection. “It is difficult for some of these people to keep abreast of the regulations,” remarked the Magistrate in fining defendant 10/- with costs 10/- on the first charge, and convicting and discharging him on the other. “Trifling" Charge. On behalf of James Joseph McKeown, Mr J. P. Steven admitted that his client had deducted 6d emergency charge and had failed to pay it within three days. Mr Steven described the charge as trifling, and said that the wages ih question had been paid to a drover, who was not an ordinary employee of the defendant. Mr E. C. J. Foot, who appeared for the Unemployment Board, said that although the charge might appear trifling the defendant had paid wages by cheque, there being no time or wages book kept. There was no suggestion, however, that defendant had deducted amounts and had kept them himself. A fine of 10/-, with costs 12/- was imposed. Irregular Amounts. Edward Henry Pearse, who did not appear, was charged with failing to deduct the charge in respect of an employee. The Board's inspector said that defendant should have paid £l/7/6, but only 6/9 had been met in irregular amounts. He understood that another man had been employed, but there was no record of this. Defendant was fined £1 with costs 10/-. Fine of £2. Mr A. L. Hudson appeared for John Stanley Talbot, who was charged with deducting the emergency tax from the wages of an employee and failing to make payment within three days. The Board's inspector explained that £9 had not been paid. Mr G. McKessar, who appeared for the Board, said that sums which were outstanding were not helping the Board to administer its unemployment schemes. The Magistrate said that failure to account for the tax might mean that someone else would receive the benefit of it unless an inspector called. Mr Hudson pointed out that there was no intention on the part of the defendant to avoid his responsibilities. It had been oversight. A penalty of £2 with costs was imposed. Charge Dismissed. A plea of not guilty was entered by Horace Robert Gill, who was charged with failure to deduct the emergency charge from the wages of an employee between July 7 and July 28. A further charge was that being a person liable for the unemployment emergency charge, he failed to make a declaration to enable an assessment to be made. Defendant was represented by Mr W. H. Walton. The inspector for the Board said that when he visited defendant’s farm on August 2, he said that he had employed a boy named Bayliss for a week or two and paid him no wages. On an inspection of defendant’s cheque book witness found that the lad had been employed for 13 weeks, defendant stating later that he had paid Bayliss 15/- a week and found. Stamps amountng to 10/6 had been affixed to represent wages of £lO, but there was no sign of other stamps. “It is obvious that this charge must fail," said the Magistrate, after Mr Walton had pointed out that the stamps had been affixed from July 7 to July 28. After legal argument had been advanced by Mr Walton to the effect that as defendant had not been obliged to make any payment, he was not “a person liable for the unemployment emergency charge,” under the section of the Act under which he was charged, the Magistrate said he would look into the second charge. In the afternoon the Magistrate gave his decision. He said that he must hold that under the section of the Act upon which the charge was based, defendant was not “ a person liable for the unemployment emergency charge,” but under the regulations he was liable for not making a return as to his Income. As he was not charged with that, however, he would dismiss the case without prejudice. Levy Defaulter. There was no appearance of Stanley Johnston, who was charged with making default in the payment of the unemployment levy for more than one month. For the Unemployment Board, Mr Foote said that defendant had paid nothing since 1931. The office had sent five letters to Johnston, and an inquiry officer had interviewed him. Defendant, however, appeared to be totally apathetic. A fine of £1 with costs 10/- was imposed, the Magistrate adding that Johnston could make whatever application he thought fit.