BREACH OF AWARD PROVED

Chronicle (Levin), 8 June 1946, Page 4

BREACH OF AWARD PROVED

■ 7*^* — CASE AGAINST LEVIN FIFM . PART-TIME EftlPL O YMENT An important receiWecl judgment, bearing 011 the legal position of part-time employment of workers was given in the Levin .Court yesterday by Mr. A. M. Goui'ding, S.M. The case was one in which the Inspector of Factories . (Mr. R. Weir) claimecl £10 from K. Shaw, hardware mercliant, of Levin, for whom Mr. N. M. Thomson appeared, alleging that defendant "einplqyecl Mr. W. W. Benfell as a store jiman and failed to pay him award 1 rates of pay. The claim was hearcl I at the May sitting of the court, and jHis Worship ghve written judgment yesterday. The facts of the case were siniple, said Mr. Goulcling, in tlie course of his judgment. It was admitted j that- defendant was a party, to and Was' bouncl by the Retail Shop Assistants' Award. Defendant employed Benfell on a weekly basts, giving hin\three days' work a week. ! Benfell's work was to reeeive goods joff trucks, unpack them ancl give ,a hand stowing them iii the shop and cleaning up. He had also helpecl packing parcels for railing and posting, and had been pald on the basis of £1 per day, receiving his wages of £3 each Friday. The £3 was clear of tax, while Benfell had done other - part-time work to supplement it. He himself had ;been quite satisfled with the arrangement with defendant. For the inspector, Mr. Goulding continued, it was maintained that under the awaicl Benfell was a shop assistant, and his weekly wage should have been in accordance with the rates set out in the award. 'Mr. Thomson had raised two iclefences, proceecled His Worship. Firstly, that uuder clause l (a) oj ! the award a shop assistant was one j substantially employed in any Icapacitv in comiection with the ; reception, display, etc., of goods or jorders for goods, and Benfell hacl not been substantially so employed. He had rejeeted tliis defence at'the hearing, and adhered to it. Benfell was clearly a storeman or packer, and his whole work had consisted of unloading goods from lorries, unpacking them and storing and putting them up in parcels. He had done 110 other work, so that the work of a storeman which he had done, had not merelv been his substantial, but his whole employment. The second defence, continued Mr. Goulcling, was that the award fixed only the minimum rate of pay, and on that basis for the days he was employed Benfell had been paid more tlian the minimum raio. He held that the award provided that the employment shoulcl be deemed to be a weekly employment, and 110 deduetion was to be made from wages exeept for the worker's sickness, or through default or accident. Provisions With regard' to payment of wages inclicated weekly rates of wages, not hourly rates. His Worship addecl that there was also provision in the awarcl for employment of mider-rato workers, 1 and he thought that under those j provisions an arrangement could j have been made by defendant to j employ Benfell as he had been em- j ploying him, but that had not been 1 done, nor could Benfell be regard- ' ecl as a casual worker under clause 1 8, of the award. beeause only those who were engagecl temporarily for less than two consecutive weeks could be regarded as casual workers. His Worship, thcrefore, saicl he was unable to mad in the award any provision .for part-time weekly contracts, and he thought a breach had been provecl. Ile imposecl a penalty of £2.