PECULIAR CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XIX, Issue 1581, 11 October 1905, Page 4

PECULIAR CASE.

BREACH OF BUTCHERS’ AWARD

FATHER AND SON.

At tho Arbitration Court in Wellington on Thursday, Dr Findlay represented tho Labor Department in Bupport of a obargo against Frederick Robort Bust, of having committed a broaoh of the butchers’ award, Respondent appoared in; porson, Dr Findlay said, the ease was somewhat pooulior on«, Plaintiffs allogod tbat tho presont respondent was in tho employment of his son. The respondent had boon in business as a butoher, and had become a party to an award. Subsequent to tbo granting of that award his son wont into business, and tho faihor (respondent) woDt into hiß employment as manager, and carried on business nndor power of attor-, noy'from his son. Under that power of* attorney ho deducted from tho shop's; taking 61b a woek as wages, when under award ho should have been paid *SS per week. The complainants suggested tbat this was a somewhat novel soheme adopted in conse* quenoe of prooeodings previously taken in tbo Arbitration Court agaiDst tho present respondent. The respondent, in his ovidenoe, stated that in addition to receiving 51s per week, ho lived on the promises, which was a, privilege worth more than £1 a week to him, and besides he received bis meat free, and weekly moat for a family of 11 was no small item. Tho president, in giving tho decision of the Court,said it was the first case that had come before them In which the father was charged as an employee working for his son at a rate below the awarded wage. Tho fact suggested ; R was a very rare orrnngement. What the Court had to consider was the real nature of the employment of the respondent. They had ascertained what his work was, which was the best test, and there wob no doubt that he was 11 first shopman.” It was equally free from doubt that the wage he received fcwas Ibbb than tho rato awarded, Tho Court could not take into consideration the additional privilege, . All they had to do with was tbe fact that the money should have been paid ana it was not. There the matter began Snd ended, so far as the Court was conerned. The penalty imposed was a fine pf 10s, and Ifil costs and expenses,