CLOSE QUESTIONING

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 181, 18 August 1937, Page 3

CLOSE QUESTIONING

Labour Inspector's Method of Prosecution MAGISTRATE'S COMMENT (By Telegrsph— Presa Assooiation.) f ATTOKLAND, iAst-Nighf. j ! "In this case I think there has heenj •a hreach of the letter of the award,"J •said Mr. Wyvrea Wilson, S.M., when. a jcharge of failing to pay overtime to iemployees was hrought against Thomas ;Gray, butcher, of Manukau road, hyi Herbert Stennett Hurle, Inspector of! Awards. The Magistrate added thatj the whole circumstaiices of the case ledj him to the conclusion that there hadf been.no breach of the true spirit of the ' award. The true spirit of all awards was that a just awaTd should he given by an employer and evidence in the present case showed the employer hadj ibeen partieularly just. i Counsel for defendant, Mr. Newhnry, jsaid the facts of the case were admit;ted, but he would like full evidence, as •It might show that the prosecution was not warranted. ■ The inspector statedi that at 4.45 p.m. ion June 18 he visited defendant 's shop Jand found three employees were still jworking. The award provided that Ithey should cease work at 4.30 p.m. or {should be paid overtime. Defendant ;was not present, and he spoke to the! jsecond assistant for about a quarter of ; isn hour. The men were still working. jwfhen he left the preipises. The follow-i ing week he called back again and saw; that no overtime had been recorded forthe three men on the prevlous Friday. Cross-examined, Hurle said the assis-' tant Boyd said overtime work was; necessary, as the men were cleaning np.; There was estra work at the time as an (employee had been dismissed. ; Counsel: Were you told these men: ,often staTted work late and that one of. Ithem was receiving 10s above award] jate! The inspector: I was told quite.A lo't] ibut do not xemember ••- exactly every..•thing.

You are just concerned with fhe ibreaeh and you are not concernedi with the circumstances, hut just proseeute? ; So many warnings have been issuedi land so mnch publicity has been given] fto this matter that we take the at'titude; •that there is no necessity for working] jovertime. Purther questioned, the inspector said; that, if he discovered. a breach himself,: he could use a certain amount of discretion. The Magistrate: Consequently you; will take into consideration any spe^l] circumstances of each casef Witness: Yes. "I went to this shop, as I heard they made a practice of working overtime,"' continued witness, "and I found them working overtime when I arrived there. I have seen inside the shop when passing and seen men working. That was after 4.30 p.m." > Counsel: I am informed it would be impossible to see in this shop at that time as the blind is pulled down at: 4.30. ] Witness repeated he had passed fhe| ■.shop after 4.30 and seen no blind and' jfound men working. In reply to the Magistrate, witness; said he thought. he could say with cer-; tainty that he had passed the shop on! .two oceasions under such circumstances. He was in a tram. The Magistrate: You saw that wasgoing on and you did not go in and inquire? "There is a certain amount of discretion to be used and I used it," replied witness. "I cannot understand why you did not iejjort the explanation given to you when you reportcd to your supcriors on tho. circumstances," obscrved tln' Magistrate. In reply to counsel, witness said 1) did not. usually report the cireuai-'t- .'-' of the case if the explanation v. > (, tionable. One of the men iji 11 s had worked overtime and no c.s.

;tion was given as to whjj they were not: jpaid for overtime. 1 When. counsel submitted that ]the factj •that defendant knew witness was an; • inspector would show that the offencei jwas partieularly glaring, witness replied; that it showed that defendant did not expeet him to call back again the'fol-1 lowing weekrf Asked whether he had any piinciplei to work on in determining whether to proseeute, witness replied: -"I use my own intellect." .. After further cross-examination, witness repeated that he could not say that he remembered the explanation given in thi3 case. • Counsel: Did you make notes afteriwardsJ • Witness: Well, I ■■ The Magistrate: But you did not on this occasion. No I did not think the explanation of sufficient importance. * I was taking , a case for payment for overtime work. The work was done and overtime was not paid. Cecil Boyd said he was second shop assistant for defendant at the time of the inspector 's visit and had sinee become a partner. Defendant was a generous employer and had been very good to his men. One Teceived full pay pius free meals and another 10s a week 1 more than he was entitled to, as he was considered worth it* The men were often late, and no notice was taken of it, and on one Saturday morning two of them were two hours late for work. Another young employee could have time off whenever he liked. The blinds were down every day at 4.30 p.m. There were two inspectors on that line, added witness, and defendant was particular about pntting them down. ' ' This seems to be a breach of the letter of the award," said the Magistrate. ' ' I find it diffieult to accept the sfcatement of the inspector that he has passed this place in the course of his duty on other oceasions and seen breaches of the award, concerning which he took no action. I do not take • it into aecount. I think inspectors when they make inspections should give an explanation of the circumstances they find. That explanation should be embodied ha the inspectors' reports to their superior officers.V Defendant was fined 10s. Costs were no.t allowed the department.