STAYING AWAY FROM WORK

Hokitika Guardian, 20 August 1918, Page 3

STAYING AWAY FROM WORK

light on an objectionable PRACTICE. DUNEDIN, August 15. A ease of mutual interest was heard in the Magistrate's Court to-day when Malcolm Stevenson (contractor) sued William George Bateman Stanley (carter) for £2 damages for breach of contract.

Counsel for plaintiff said that the ease was brought for the purpose' ot having an objectionable practice stopped. It appeared that some carters had formed the habit of stopping away for a day whenever they felt like it. The excuse was generally that of sickness, but usually the real cause was that they liked having a holiday or that they went on a drinking bout. The employers were consequently seriously inconvenienced. In the; c-asc in question plaintiff had gone to defendant’s' house to ascertain the cause of his absence, but'had got no satisfactory explanation a further visit with the Inspector of Factories, being resultless also. Action was then taken. Counsel added that the drivers’ award provided for a week’s notice on either side, and also for regular work by the employee unless absence was caused through sickness. Defendant advanced as the reason for his not going to work that day was that the water-pipes were frozen, ami he could not get any breakfast an* that he was not going to sliovel coal until he had had a meal. He also declared that “no one could compel him to work for Stevenson.”.

The Magistrate, in giving judgment, said the agreement regulated the contract of service. There were duties as well as rights on cither side. It was clear that defendant had been guilty of breach of the agreement, and the excuse put forward could not be taken seriously. It was not a genuine excuse and it was surprising that it should have been made. In view of the fact that the defendant was a workman and 'going into camp shortly and that the plaintiff did not press for damages, judgment would be given for 10s. damages only Plaintiff notified that he would not claim any costs, and tho Magistrate remarked that defendant should recognise that plaintiff had dealt very handsomely with him in the circumstances.