FINED FOR BREACH OF BAKERS’ AWARD.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19154, 21 August 1930, Page 9

FINED FOR BREACH OF BAKERS’ AWARD.

PROTEST IS MADE AT DEPARTMENT’S ACTION “The time has come when some protest might be made as to the case 3 selected by the Labour Department for hearing.” This statement was made by Mr Twyneham in the Magistrate’s Court this morning during the hearing of a case brought by' the Labour Department. The defendants were Herbert Leslie Kettle and Stanley Kruse, employers, and Jason Farmer and Robert Rattray, employees. The department claimed a £lO penalty; from the employers for failure to pay overtime rates and for failure to enter in the time and wagesbook the starting and finishing times of the workers. The charge against the employees concerned failure to claim overtime. Air N. IT. Graham, for the department, said that the prosecutions were brought to prevent unfair competition. The two defendants, Farmer and Rattray, had started work before the hours specified in the award without making a claim for overtime. The defendants were bakers, and breaches of this nature led to unfair competition, as some would be able to put their bread on the market before the others. The breaches were looked on as serious.

Mr Twyneham said that this was a time when relations between employer and employee should be kept as close as possible. “There have been eases,” he said, “in which prosecutions have resulted in the wages bills being substantially reduced.” Referring to the case before the Court, he said that the employees had not worked exactly to tho clock. Sometimes they were early and sometimes late. They had never been asked to come to work earlier than the award time. If the employers had been defrauded, there would have been some ground for complaint, but there was no suggestion of that. The men were paid in excess of the award rates, and even if the wages book had been entered up, they” would still have been receiving in excess of the award rate. This was one of the cases where it was not policy for the department to have taken action. Mr Twyneham asked that a nominal penalty only should be inflicted.' Mr Graham said that proceedings would not have been taken if the defends >ts had not disregarded a warning g* Ten to them. The Magistrate said that so long as the award existed it had to be complied with, otherwise it would lead to unfair competition. A penalty of £3 on each breach was inflicted on the employers and £1 on the employees.