EMPLOYING RESERVISTS

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 46, 17 November 1917, Page 8

EMPLOYING RESERVISTS

RESPONSIBILITY OF EMPLOYERS. "Reliance on a reservist's statement that he is exempt, and perfunctory perusal of a certificate of discharge which discloses that the reservist is not exempted from enrolment in tho Expeditionary Forco Reserve, do not _ form reasonablo grounds of belief, within tho moaning of Section 40 of the Military Service Act, 1916," was tho opinion expressed by Mr. S. E. M'Carthy, S.M., yesterday in a reserved judgment in tho case against It. Hannah and Co., who weTe charged that between March 1 and August 2i, at Wellington,- after tho enrolment of the First Division of the Expeditionary Force Reserve had beon proclaimed, did continue in their employ, ment more than seven days one Harry Courtonay Scaife, a maii who belonged to tho said division, and who was riot enrolled therein. It was admitted that Scaifo was not enrolled in tho First Division and that he had not been a member of any expeditionary forco. It was shown in evidence that Hannah and Co. had taken Scaifo into their employment as a returned soldier. They had asked Scaife if ho had been enrolled, and he told them he had been away with the First Reinforcements and had* been discharged. Ho also said he had reenlisted with the Ninth Reinforcements and had been discharged as medically unlit. Scaife had seen no service abroad. Tho defendants, by making inquiries from tho Government Statistician, could have readily discovered tho falsity of Scaife's statements. The defendants made no such inquiries. - They contended that they had proved that they believed on reasonable grounds that Scaife was a returned soldier. What happened was that defendants were misled by Scaife s falsa statements and tho production of the certificates of discharge. After referring to the provisions of the Act tno Magistrate held that an employer had no right to take an employee's uncor. r'oborated word, oral or written,'ns to his military status. One shirking his military duties was not likely to chsclos 6 the truth., Continuing, the- Magistrate said: "I have no' doubt tho defendants believed that Scaife was exempt from enrolment. They had. however, no reasonablo grounds for that belief. The Act casts on employers the duty of assistin" tha authorities to discover military shirkers, and employers must take this duty seriously and discharge it intelligently." . ' ... Defendants were convicted and fined JJ2O, and ordered to pay costs, 7s. On the application of Mr. A. W. Blair, who appeared for Hannah and _ Co., security for appeal was fixed at £2<.