COMPULSORY CADET PARADES

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2193, 4 July 1914, Page 7

COMPULSORY CADET PARADES

EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY

TEST CASE IN COURT

Tho case of an employer refusing to allow an employeo to render tho personal service required of him under the Defence Act, 1912, was tested in Court before Mr. D. G. A. Cooper, S.M., at tho Magistrate's Court yesterday. William' Allan; of tho firm of Vcitch and Allan, drapers, Cuba Street, was charged with preventing. Ernest Walker Laughlin, an employee of the firm, from attending a Senior Cadet parade. Mr." P. S. K. Macassey appeared for tho Defenco Department, and Mr. J. 0. Peacock represented the defendant. Mr. Macassey stated that the charge was laid under Section 57 of the Defenco (Amended) Act, 1912, which naado a person Ifablo to a fine of £20 who prevented or attempted to prevent any person attending or taking part in parades, either by reducing (in the case of an employee)'a person's salary, or dismissing' him from employment. The drills for Senior Cadets, as prescribed in tho "Gazette," were fifty drills of an hour's duration per year, and, six half-day parades. The defendant in, tho present caso, had in his employ a lad named Laughlin, who was a member' of No. 31 Company of the'/Wellington Senior Cadets. Tho.boy received a no; tice to attend a parade on March t last. He went to Mr. Allan, and told him that ho had received the notice, and was told that he would not be, allowed to attend tho parade. Later, tho boy told Captain Frandi,«.who interviewed, the defendant. Mr. Allan stated: to Captain Frandi that he failed to see any reason for altering his decision in refusing to allow the boy to go to a parade. ■ Optional Parade Days, ■ On May 48, the defendant wrote to the Minister for Defence, pointing out that it was very inconvenient for his firm to allow all the boys off: on a Saturday afternoon, as it was the busiest day in the week. In the letter, Mr. Aliari suggested that thqse boys who could not attend parades on Saturday afternoons^should.be allowed to attend on Wednesdays. The lad Laughlan gave evidence, adding .that ho had only attendedtwo halfday parades for tho year ending Juno, ■1914. , ' ' To Mr. Peacock: Ho was off duty.on Saturday afternoons now, as ho wa3 in the factory. ■■.','•■ Captain A..- Frandi, commander of No. 31 Company, said that ho had sent a notice to the boy Laughlin to attend a parade. Witness interviewed the defendant on March,-8, and.the latter said, that it was inconvenient for him to al•lowthe boy off on the. Saturday afternoon in question. The defendant said if witness'»insisted upon .the boy to drill, they (the.Department)-could keep the Boy. The Department had always done its best to meet the employer*. Out of the 104 boys who comprised witness's company,' only ten worked on .Wednesdays.' : Mr. Peacock said that the facts of the case were admitted. The case was, he understood; a -test• one, and concerned many other employers as well as Mr. Allan. Counsel admitted, that, there/must be some littleuinco;n.venience: to employers,. but /the difficulty coujd. be overcome by .holding a parade on Wednesday aser'no,pns i ;.?.iHisj.cljenfc was_ entirely in fayquVof-the Scheme, Aufehor, had five cadets and a'number of-Terri-torials in his employ, and consequently •was often seriously inconvenienced.' ;■• ' 'Mr.'Men's Case. ■ •' : Mr. Allan also gh.\\s evidence. B«plyr' ing to Mr. Macassey, he said that the Territorial parades and Senior Cadet parades inconvenienced tho firm. It cost the firm £15 in wages during the last Territorial camp. Saturday was a bad day for parades, as far as he was concerned. \ Witness' suggested thatparades be held on Wednesday afternoons for boys who could not get oil on Saturdays'. . ■ .

• ;.Mr. Macassey stated that out of 640 Senior. Cadets in . one area only eiffhteon '-boys- got "off on Wednesday afternoons. He, however, did not press for'a heavy penalty, as the case was really only a tost .one. The department was veryanxious to meet tho employers in every possible direction. His Worship said that the defendant should, have let the boy'off on March 7. He, however, realised that some inconvenience' was felt by employers. The defendant would be fined £1 and costs.