AGRICULTURAL WORKERS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 80, Issue 222, 20 September 1938, Page 10

AGRICULTURAL WORKERS

DEFINITION OF ACT MARKET GARDENER CHARGED Charged that between July 13 and 25, 1938, being an employer wit. in the meaning of the Agricultural l/orkers’ Act, he employed workers and failed to pay them the regular wages prescribed, Kwong Chong Fore appeared before Mr. J. H. Salmon, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court at Wanganui yesterday. The case was adjourned for two weeks to enable defendant to give evidence regarding the type of worn which was being done. The case for the prosecution was conducted by Mr. E, W. H. George, inspector of factories. Mr. D. G. Young appeared for defendant. Inspector George stated that on July 25, 1938, he inspected defendant's wages and time books. He found youths and females employed at hourly rates of wages in the market garden. The order provided specially for a weekly wage for females and junior male workers. He contended that they could not be employed at hourly rates of wages. The sum of £2 8s a week was provided for adult females and the order contemplated a full week’s wages for them. Casual workers was applicable only to male workers employed under sub-clause 2 of clause 4. The rate of pay for this class of work was 2s an hour. Clause C 4 provided for any two pieceworkers to three or fraction of three adults, and certain classes of work was specified such as tying tomatoes or picking peas. The workers referred to in this case did all classes of work. For orchard workers provision was made for casual senior and junior workers. Mr. Young said that the employees had worked hourly and were paid on an hourly basis. There was no prohibition of the employment of youths or females on an hourly basis or as casual workers. Further than that casual work was contemplated by the order in clause 4D. The magistrate stated that the difficulty arising as far as the Court was concerned was that it could not give an interpretation and he must either convict for an alleged breach l of this order or not. It seemed to him that the parties had not sufficiently appreciated the position and it should be proved before the Court the actual work done by these females or minors. The only casual work provided for in this order was for adult males. There was provision for piecework which must be worked at a proportionate rate for the weekly wages, and that work was strictly limited, he thought to certain classes of work. There was also a limitation to the proportion of minors who might be employed in respect to piece--work. The only conclusion he could come to was that the only casual employees who might be employed were adult males. Minors and females might be employed on certain specific . work which came under the piece- , work clauses. It might be that the defendant had an absolute defence if he 1 could show that the work done came within the piecework clause.