GROCERY-SHOP HOURS

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 10, 27 January 1937, Page 6

GROCERY-SHOP HOURS

Employment of Assistants on Half Day EMPLOYERS FINED Three cases arising out of the alleged employment of ehop assistants in Hastings grocery stores on the statutory half-holiday were brought by the inspeetor of Factories, Mr E. A. Wood, in the Hastings Magistrate's Court this morning before Mr J. Miller, * S.M. L. Bacon, manager of Yatea Cash Stores Ltd., charged with employing two assistants after noon on the statutory half-holiday, pleaded guilty. Mr Wood stated • that a previous warning had been given. A fine of £1 and costs 10/- was imposed. Defendant stated in evidenee that it had been a partfcularly busy morning. The shop was closed at noon, but there were customers still being attended to until 12.15. One of the employees had" his coat on and was definitely not working when the .inspeetor called. A similar fine of £1 and costs 10/was imposed on J. Johnston, manager of Huniphries' Cash . Grocery, who pleaded guilty to a charge of employing, three assistants on a atatutory half-holiday. Mr Wood stated that he had visited the shop at 12.30 p.m. when employees were found tidying up the premises. Defendant stated in evidenee t.hat .he closed his shop at noon on the day in question} but the last customer aid not leave until 12.30. There being perishable goods on display in tbe shop, it was n'ecessary that these be cleared away at once. Defendant had told the inspeetor he was willing to pay the assistants overtime for the time worked.

Mr Wood said that a previous warning had been given in this case. Defendant' s offer could not be accepted as the closing of shops at noon on halfdays was a compulsory matter. The case against E. S. Ingram occu pied a con^iderably longer period than the other cases. Ingram was proceeded against by the inspeetor for employing three! assistants on a half-holiday. The action was defended by Mr. Gifford, who explained that the defendant was ill and could not appear, but asked that the case be proceedecLwith. A fine of 10/- and costs of the same amount was imposed. Mr. Wood, said that when an inspection was made three employees were found on the premises with their aprons on. Mr. E. E. Sheriff, an inspeetor of factories, • eorroborated, stating that when he visited the shop one employee was baiting rat-traps, another was behind a bacon. machine and the third was removing a packet from the counter. He submitted that they were performing their usual duties. The doot was locked. Mr. Ingram was on the premises and he and the" staff had been discussing the Royal crisis, which came to a climax the next day. Witness admitted that one of the employees had protested to him about the action, and Mr. Ingram claimed that the employees were not working. Mr. Sheriff entered the shop about 12.42. Mr. Wood quoted the Act, which said that the fact that an employee was found - in his shop was evidenee that he was workingg unless it could be proved that he was there without the knowledge or consent of .his eroployer. Previous warnings had boen given in this case. Mr. Miller agreed that the men should not have been there. Mr. Gifford mentioned that Mrs. Ingram made a practice of entertaining the men to supper in the shop after it closed on Sataurday night. This was also a breach, and Mr. Wood said- a risk was being now run by doing this., Mr. Wood said there was a constant practice in Hastings, for grocers particulariy to be too lajx in this matter.