SHOPS AND OFFICES ACT

Hutt News, Volume 2, Issue 25, 14 November 1929, Page 10

SHOPS AND OFFICES ACT

, ALLEGED ANOMAJJY BI'TCJIEK PROSEC.1LrTE.D

Bofon; -Mr. T. -.B

Mem-il. S.M. last

week

at Lower

Hutt,

the In-

spector of factories pi-oeeeded against 'tluj Hutt Meat Company, Ltd, on an mformation charging the company with employing certain shop assistants for more than 48 hours in any one week/, and. on a civil summons claiming £20 as penalties (for the breach of ''The Butchers' Award" for failing to pay overtime as required by the Award.

/Mr W. J. M'ountjoy, in prosecuting for the Labour Department, stated tha£ the Department, took a serious view of the breaches committed by the Defendant Company in so far a"s '■' The Shops and .Offices Act" did not permit shop assistants to be employed for more than 48 hours in any one week. ,

Mr Mount joy,. in addressing the' Bench, stated that the defendant, with other butchers, had been warned by a circular issued- by the -Department in> | July of this wyear arid. that, the defend- ■ ant company had been>- subsequently warned by the Union Secretary against committing the breaches which were continually occurring. However, the defendant company had proceeded to

employ its assistants in breach' of the previsions of "The Shops and. Offices Act"' and in breach of the provisions of* the Butchers' Award. ;Mr Mountjby . submit-tqd that as other fcmtehers iii the Wellington' district }Vere c^mplyiag with the Award they were being prejudiced by the-action of the defendant company in carrying 'on business in; breach of the Act ond the Award re- ■ spectively. Mr Mount joy ' also mentioned that the defendant 'company hafl "been, previously convicted of a breach of theAward in 1927; and that two prosecutions against "the defendant cbmpahy were-.wi'thdrawii last year: "because" of a bereavement in the "family of the Grpvcrniug Dizeetor of the. Company.- '

Mr C. R. Barrett^ who ; appeared for the;, defendant company submitted, that in respect of the offence for employing shop assistants for more than 48 hours in any one week, that the offence Avas not a serious one and .that the breach, of the Act had been acquiesced in by the employees, who were quite willing to work more than 48 hours a week provided that they were paid double time as was paid for all time over the forty-eight hours^ Mr. Barrett urged on. behalf pf the defendant company that it was a difficult matter for him tc» carry out Ms business and to fully comply with the provisions of the Act insofar as the requirement of 48 hours' employment; in any one week were concerned, as the volume of. the defendant company's business varied according to the day of the week, with the result that on some days during the week it was essential that some of the employees should work for more than-48 hours. '

Mr Barrett . sjibioitted that the breach committed by the company was entirely a technical, one and that the case was Tiot on a par with other prosecutions by the Labour Department for sweating employees or failing to pay double time, when overtime was worked and mentioned that he had been instructed by his client that the butchers in the Wellington district intended applying for an amendment to "The Shops and Offices Aet'.; in order to enable them to work employees for >more than 48 hours in any one week if the circumstances' of tlie employer Js : business require extra \york to be done. .

- With.reference to the civil penalty of £20 churned by the Labour. Department for failing to pay overtime, Mil- Barrett pointed out the anomaly in the 4-ward in that, although the employer' was not allowed to work 'his employees for more tli an- 48 hours in any one week, if lie si ii«tly complied 'with -4he Act insofar a.- the number of hours worked were concerned, -he 'nevertheless committed. an offence under' the Award if he fail-' ed to pay overtime when an employee ccmimencL-tl work before the usual starting time in the morning, namely .7 o'clock ov where* an employee worked later than the usual nnishing time,

namely, 5 p.m:

Mr Barrett pointed out that the De- ,/ fondant Uompany, had paid overtime at double rates in respect of work done afI ter the expiration of 4? hours "in any | one week an,d that bj^ arrangement between the defendant company and the pmrtlovees they often commenced work /before 7 o'clock in tne morning and/or finished work after the usual finishing time namely .5 p.m. .and that, if the 4S liortrsin any one -week exceeded nofoVer- , time had been paid. . . -

In the circumstances counsel for the

defendant asked that a lenient penalty he .imposed but the Magistrate took a serious view of the. ouVuce Jti view of the

previous warnings to and thu prosecutions ..against defendant- conipany and imposed a pentVity of £5 on the information for employing shop assistants for more than -VS lours in'any -Tie week .and .a penalty of £l> los on each of the ; two c-Jiarges for -fa-"l*rig to pay- the overtime provided by tbo A:.t. His W^rphip mentioned that fcho -nii^imum pv.ialty iti each ease was £100. _ . ■