MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1488, 10 July 1912, Page 9

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

(Before Dr. M'Arthur, iS.M.) INSPECTOR'S ACT. IN EE PASTRY COOKS' 'AWARD. INTERESTING EVIDENCE. At the Magistrate's Court yesterday Mr. D. Carmody (Inspector of Awards) proceeded, against Godber and Co., Ltd., confectioners, for an alleged breach of an award. 'Mr. T. S. 'Weston, appeared on behalf of Godber and Co. Giving evidence Mr. Carmody stated that lie had paid a visit to Godber's premises in! Cuba Street on.May 10 and had examined tho time-book which was kept in the bakehouse. 110 had found that the book was not being kept as ordered by the award, inasmuch as Sunday work had not been entered up.. He saw Mr. Godber, son., and informed him that (according to tho book) ho had not paid tlio men for work on Sundays. As Mr. Godber, sen, apparently took no active step ho (Mr. Carmody) saw Mr. Godber, jun., who informed him that there.was a.certain arrangemcut between tho firm and the men. By this arrangement tho men worked a certain-number of hours' overtime each week, and this ovortime was accredited to two moals per day. Under the "awtird an employer is entitled to chargo up to 7s. Gd. per week for meals. Mr. Godber had informed him that tho

work-which tho men did on Sundays (amounting to about mi hour every ninth bunday per man) did not counterbalance the deficit in hours per week that ho was entitled to. To Mr. Weston: It was triio that when lie (Mr. Carmody) had pointod out tho technical breach of tho award, Mr. Godber, jun., had agreed, and had stated that ho would alter it. The alteration had, ill fact, been made. He (witness) said that ho was not aware that a letter setting out the arrangement had been written to tho union by/Mr. Godber. Tho next witness was Andrew Collins, secretary of the Bakers' Union.- Ho stated that he had been the union's secretary ever since the award camo into force, and lie considered that he had tho confidence of tho men. Ho had not had any complaints'-from the men before the information had been' laid. In fact he

had been first inado awar© 6f tlio breach of tho award by an employer. : Mr. Weston:. Do you not consider it strange that if tliero had been any grievance tlio men had not complained? . | Witness "replied that the.v (the men) were ignorant of the terms of the award. They did not know that they .were entitled to overtime rates on Sunday. • -Mr. Weston, in the course of his statement for the defence; said that he was ready to admit the facts of the prosecution. lie hoped, however,, to show his Worship that the breach was so trivial and' excusable that, under Section'l6- of the Industrial Conciliation Amendment Act it should be dismissed as trivial. Mr. Carmody admitted that, as soon as he had pointed out tho breach, it had been altered, and the award thereafter had been strictly-adhered to. The men themselves were not dissatisfied and even preferred their agreement with their employer to a rigid adherenco to tlio provisions of the award. Mr. , Weston went on to say that it would have been better and would save a lot of trouble if Mr. 'Carmody, after ho had seen how willing ' Godber and Co. wero to treat their men well, had let the matter drop. He again submitted that it was a case within, the.scope of Section 16 of tho Industrial Conciliation Amendment Act, and ho hoped that 'his Worship would bo fair enough and strong enough to make use of the wide discretion allowed him by that sec-' .lion.

Mr. Godber,. junr., gnvo tho following particulars of the agreement between himself and tho' employees. In accordance with tho award, ho was entitled to. 7s. Cd. for'.feeding tho men, on a scale of two meals.'per day. Instead of taking that 7s. Gd„ however, the men made, it up to him by working one hour per day extra for .five days per .week—thus entitling him to 51 honrs'per weeki'" 'A'let- 1 ' ter setting forth tho nature of this agreement had been forwarded to the union. Although he (tlio employer) was entitled to 51" hours' work per week, the men only worked 531 hours per week, and thus they were practically half an hour per week in their employer's debt." Every ninth Sunday, or thereabouts, one man came back and worked one hour (not more) in sponging.' This, it was admitted, was necessary work.. It thus appeared that, for every nine half-hours gamed the men sometimes' worked lejs than. an hour on Sunday. • Mr. Godber added that, in nearly every case,, lie paid above the award rate, and had always treated his men well. He paid higher,wages than anyone else in Wellington. ' ' ■. /' His- Worship reserved judgment. >

OVER DRAINAGE WORK. A; R. Alpe, a'farmer residing at Uruti, claimed .£2O from Hi IV Madining,. contractor, of Wellington, as amount paid by him for tho execution of certain drainage works to be carried out on plaintiff's premises ,at Brooklyn. Plaintiff also claimed .£lO as damages, consequent on alleged non-fulfilment of tho drainage work. Defendant Manning counter-claimed ,£l2, urging tliat lie had been prevented from doing the work, and had made an offer to return the original <£20. Afterwards, Alpe's premises had been damaged by fire, and hei (defendant) had carried out cdrtain repair work, and had sent in an account for ,£l2. This Alpe refused to pay, and, in consequence, Manning tendered him ,£B, being tho balance of the £20 which Alpo liad previously paid. Decision was reserved. f

UNDEFENDED CASES. In the following cases judgment was entered for plaintiff bv default:—H." Kahn (trading as Lb Marche) v. John Love, ,£2 3s. Id., costs 12s. ; A. S. Collver v. E. E. Hiscocks, .£1 13s. 9d., costs 55.; Easson Ltd. v. L. E. Christie, Ltd., 18s. 'Bd., costs £6 lis.; Alex. M'ljachlan v. Percy Archer, .£B, costs ,£l:-3s. Gd.; Wellington Bootmakors' Union v. F. Barnes, .£1 65., costs 55.; Jas. Smith, Ltd., v. Tlios. O'Neill,. Jei 75., costs 6s. _ JUDGMENT SUMMONS. , Joseph Jas. Moore , was ordered to pay i! 18 17?. 3d., to Bannatyno. and Hunter, Ltd;, by July 23. The alternative was fourteen'days' detention. ' '

'» POLICE. CASES. (Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.). 1 Wallace Ro£s \vas charged with stealing a vug valued at ,£4 on April 22, the property of R. S. Henry,' of Glehavy. Mr. P. Jackson, who appeared for tho accused, urged his Worship to consider that this was his first offence, and that ho was only 21 years oLage. Ross was convicted and ordered to come up for seiitcnco. when called upon. 'Joseph Roberts, .who was arrested in Boulbptt Street for being disorderly while .under the influence of liquor, was fined 205., in default three days' imprisonment. Patrick Randall was ordered to pay 17s. Gd. medical' expenses in connection with an insobriety charge. Six first offenders wero dealt with leniently.