DRIVERS’ AWARD

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 80, Issue 135, 9 June 1937, Page 9

DRIVERS’ AWARD

ALLEGED BREACHES NOMINAL PENALTY FIXED Alleged breaches of the Wellington Motor and Horse-drivers’ Award of 1936 were heard by Mr J. H. Salmon, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday when the Inspector of Awards, Mr S. E. McGregor, proceeded against George B. Cavell, of the WanganuiTaihape transport service, in connection with the wages paid to a youth as a driver’s assistant. There was a claim for £8 9s 7d for overtime and hours worked in excess of 88 a fortnight. Defendant was represented by Mr C. H. Clinkard. William Samuel Quilter, 19, formerly employed as an assistant to defendant for about eight months, from December, 1936, until he left in February, stated that he received £2 per week and was also boarded by defendant. On Monday, Wednesday, and Friday he was assisting on the Taihape run, and on the other days picked up freight in Wanganui. If he did not work a full day on Saturday he worked on Sunday morning. On the Taihape trip he was called at 4 a.m. and had half an hour for dinner at Taihape. Sometimes an extra trip was made on Saturday. He usually started out on the trip about 4.30 a.m. The earliest he returned to Wanganui would be 7 p.m. and the latest about 2 a.m. On the off days he started at 9 a.m. and the latest finishing time would be 10.30 p.m. He received no payment for overtime. To Mr Clinkard: He received £2 per week when he started, whereas the award was £1 17s 6d. He was not charged for board. He admitted that he was kept on some time after defendant required him. He was claiming overtime from the time he got up in the morning. Re-examined: His usual finishing time on three days per week was 10 p.m.

Defendant stated that he set out for Taihape at about 5 a.m. on three days per week with the assistant. They usually had three-quarters of an hour for lunch. They reached home between 6 and 8 p.m., with a few late trips. On the off days they started at 10 or 10.30 a.m. There was very little to do on these days. Since the assistant left he had been doing all the work himself. The assistant did not work on Saturday afternoons or Sunday.

Mrs Cavell corroborated the previous witness in regard to hours worked.

The magistrate said that having heard the facts, he regretted that the case came into Court, because it appeared to him that the defendants took the young man into their service and also into their own home and treated him extremely well and gave him wages even generous at that time. He was also provided with board, washing, and mending, and was treated as a member of the family. That is why he regretted that the case came into Court. It was clear that there had been a breach in regard to wages paid and that £2 12s 6d had been paid into Court, making up the amount of those wages. Under the circumstances it was a case for a nominal penalty of £l. The next question was in respect to overtime. He did not think the hours were exceeded by very much and he, the S.M., would have had extreme doubt whether he exceeded the hours at all but for the fact that the defence admitted .some 26 hours. The assistant would be entitled to that amount, viz., £2 7s Bd. For the breach of the award a penalty of 10s was allowed. Costs were also allowed on the claim.