A QUESTION OF OVERTIME.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2113, 22 June 1907, Page 3

A QUESTION OF OVERTIME.

AN INTERESTING DECISION

Press Association,

DUNEDIN, last night. Mr. Justice Williams gave judgment to-day in the case of Edwards v. the Timaru Milling Co., heard before him at Timaru. The plaintiff (Raymond Charles Edwards) was employed by the defendant company as head miller from the end. of 1003 to May, 1906, at £5 a week. After leaving this employment plaintiff, having it revealed to him that he came under the provisions of the Factories Act, 1901, and that there was an award of the Arbitration Court on himself and defendant company, under both of which ho waff entitled to payment tor overtime, brought an action for £2OO for overtime. i . • , . His Honor said plaintiff had not brought himself, under the award, which was never intended to apply to a head miller. As to his claim so far as it rested on the Fhctoneif Act, his Honor said that plaintiff, whom he conld properly term working manager, did not come within section of the Act relating to overtime, coming -.within the definition of an occupier, and not that of an employee.. His Honor pointed out that persons included in the term “occupier” are representatives of the owner and master, and throughout the Factories Act distinction was made between the occupier and persons employed, though the occupier might be a porson employed. Had plaintiff s occupation been such as to entitle him to overtime, that agreement wqiild be void. Supposing he were an “employee” he would receive ordinary remuneration, with overtime at not less than a fourth as much again as the ordinary rate, and would have been engaged and paid by the owner of the factory. His Honor thought that the section of the Act relating to the payment for overtime did not apply to such, and said tile agreement was that plaintiff was to receive £o a week to cover overtime, that agreement being made with no intention to evade the Act, but the second miller’s pay was £2 if is a week, and on that basis, or ■even at £3 a week with overtinio, plaintiff had already received more money, having received £5 a . week for 138 weeks. " From any point of view defendants were entitled to judgment, and his Honor gave judgment for defendants.