CLAIM FOR WAGES

Hokitika Guardian, 7 April 1933, Page 6

CLAIM FOR WAGES

HOKITIKA HOTELKEEPER SUED

CONFLICTING EVIDENCE HEARD

■ Considerably time w-a.s taken up in t-h'e Magistrate's Court here to.day : With tire, hearing 0 f a claim for £llO \l7s Id as wagij.3, and board money wfbrig’y charged during a -period of employment. Plaintiff was James Warnpck (Mr A. H. Paterson) and defend r.it Bridget O’Connor (Afr Murdoch),' 'hotelkeeper,. both of Hokitika. Plaintiff, s'id that he was (boarding nt v thy iiotol previously, up t t) about March, 1932. At Christmas, Patrick O’Connor, the son, wa, s going to Arut'ralia for a year’s holiday, previous fo that he had been porter and general hand in the hotel, nrd before he left, the licensee’s daughter asked plaintiff if lie would take on the job. He d'd not accept the position until toward Easter. At that time, Jfifv; J. O’Connor was going away o n holiday?, and as they had no one to carry on* he ac-epted. There were no * tried conditions, but they said they wou'd make it right with him in hoard, y.tc. He Avoided peguFaYy -there. -Later, they suggested that he should carry on with the dole, and do any dvr-cleaning that cams along. From Ma-rah 21. ho started paying ICV; a week bo vd which 1 he pa;d until December. His work was general—lighting tpe-. 'sweeping rooms and pasr' , ge, polishing, cutting wood, dish' washing,' etc., jias work j •starting -at 7 a.m. .According f Die award ho was entitled 'to board and w’ges jns r-;et Ant jn the award). To his counsel : 'Miss O’Connor did not offer -him any wages. He had pro- 1 tested against paying board aft-?r work- | trig 60 -hard, but he had been told j that there- was another man wh„ would do it. Ho claimed wag?s for 45 weeks in all. and t’’e return of £2O. Mr Afbrdoch ; Amu say you did not bring action befo'V. as you had no

mnnev ?—Yes. TT-hat did you earn from the Hospital Board?—l haven’t got it made

up. “WYI. I have. A total 0 f £2O 9s 6d i'.n all. And what did vou do for the Borough?—l was working pretty regularly. Abfi-ut £lB in all, so yon had sufficient to' pay for a summons. When yon dame bora you were doing rfrvi?Vg-cleaning. insurance, 'selling cleaner, etc?—V?sYou' instructed Mr Elr-ock to write to ,'Airs O’Connor -claiming £47 in wages?—Yes." Yon were paying 30s a week ns -a boarder until’ March 1932, after which you made a contract with the manageress ? —Y eis." Did pou id live a motor -for anybody wiii'-e you were in this job? Yes. Did you get 'other ' jobs as a motor car agent or driver ?—No. jDid yon gdt- -orders for pressing 27 suits, • ''whiter acting ak a porter?— : pressed a few suits and djd a bit of .cleaning. - - ; - ■ And were- ,on , clpl.e...,work ?—Yes. Arid while porter you paid 10s. a; week,;.-under protest, as a boarder ?—Yes.) If defenda 11$, told you when you were ,t>. hoarder thr,;t, if you could u<Jt pay

a week, could .stop on at ]os a week and 7-hclu in the hotel, you -would say '.jjjlie is wrong?—Yes. I would. . 77 You begin-Aas a general ha>d in Vrarch, 1932, find it was not until February, 1983, -jhat you made a claim for wages, attc-l the amount claimed m Mr Ehock’s letter is-different to what you claim?—AMs. Air Aiurdobh—The -day before Air Flceek’s letter -was sent, do you remember signing an unemployment document? When, asked what your ■ assets were, you said “nil” in the statement. If you had a claim for wagon why was .it not in th c claim. .Why did you not not explain on the dmummrt that your were a porter? I exphvi; ml it to the Postmaster. Here is the form which you are hound to fill in as an unemployed. AYm filled in the '‘earnings” as. lOs a week, but you., did not enter what you earned on th(> dole.—A T ou don’t have to. - It is specially stated that you mnsi enter your earnings from relief work. You”admit, then, that von did nob put in a true return?—l <lid put in ,r time return. You did yoiir cleaning in the hotel? -AMs. And the pressing?—At Alt- Ballin-

ger’s. AMu had the use of the hotel washhouse when you wanted it, the use of the telephone, and . received b-usi-h-es.s messages ?A r es.

..(The- O’Connor’s did everything they fO'.uld. to help you, when you could not pay .’your board, and they 'suggested ap .arrangement that you should pay 10s a week and work in return for board ? —That's not true. Did you not say to one man tlm! von would be satisfied if you only got your 10s a week hack ?—No, T did not.

What- would you spy if 1 could bring the man to court?—], should sav lie

was wrong

AMu used Air Ballinger’s rooms very frequently, did you not?—No. not very frequently.

Do you remember telling AD Ballinger that you resented running messages for the hotel —I certainly might have said -something, that a man who tried to -s"eak out for a few T minutes was immediately called hack. To. Air Paterson—Up to December, things, wore slack, hut in that' month

itAiyas a rush period. Air Paterson: Regarding the unemployment form, vou saw the officials about it?—AMs, T made it out under the supervision of a postal officer. ~ What hours did yon do at the hotel? —About 39;h6ip;s’- hard work a week, not counting time taken up in muffling

messages.

Leslie. Lid dicoot, n labourer, of Hokitika, said he frequently visited the hotel on .business. While there lie o fton saw plaintiif who would be sweeping or .dusting.

Counsel for defendant had no questions to be asked. Counsel for defendant said that it was manifestly simply one of those irresponsible persons who d 0 such a lot of harm to the public, in that they receive kindnetss and then turn round and try to put one over their benefactors. It was purely out of kindheartedness that defendant permitted thlp <un plea sant, odiferou? cleaning process t 0 be carried on in her premises.; The evidence of plaintiff was •entirely unsatisfactory, particularly regarumg the. official supervising unemployment declarations. Plaintiff’s statement wa,s entirely not in keeping with his evidence in the box to-day. There were many significant features, particularly that whereby he waits for a long period before demanding wages. PUintiff was a porter, dry-cleaner, canvasser, dole-worker, car-driving for hire without a license, and cleaning and 1 pressing isujts—as many as 27 suits for one firm in this town—and vet lie maintains that, at the time, ha- was un:tb.!e to p. y the cost, of the summons.

Rona'd Leslie Horn, officer in charge

of unemployment declarations, produced the form signed by plaintiff, plain-

tiff had made a statement to the effect that, his earnings wore £1 a. week, and paying 10s a week board, and .that he was engaged in intermittent work. If bis (statement in the box to-day were true, then Ids statement on the unemployment. declaration form was false.

To Mr. Murdoch: If a man had a just claim for £IQO, you would expect him to show it on tile form —Yes. Ralph 'Cox, postmaster at Hokitika, said that plaintiff .had said to him that a caiso was cropping up which might affect -his earnings. This statement was mad e to him a few days ago. Mr ‘ Paterson: Did be say he had seen Mr Coles—l don’t remember. Durham Dowell, restaurant proprietor, said that be saw plaintiff frequently. Tie once a-sked plaintiff if lie was the “brass boy” (plaintiff •polishing a knob at the time). Plaintiff said that he', was doing it to pay his hoard;

Plaintiff had previously said that the O’Connor’s had been- very decent to him. "Witness’ wife had occasion to ask plaintiff for money owing, and

plaintiff, on conversation, told her that

lie way up against it, and things would have been very hard if the O’Connors had not been' so good to him.

Mary OOc-nnor,-daughter of the defendant, said that she was manageress of the hotel. There had never been any need to have a porter, which work could easily be done by her brother. Plaintiff first came to the hotel in June two years ago, and he paid c{>3 board. He was a. dry cleaner, and had the tise of the wash-lion,se for lib work." ' lii" March, 1932; 'Warnock came to her and said he was up against it and could she give him tallytiling to do.. She confeired with her .sister and they, agreed, that, owjnoto the depression, they could hardly turn, a man into the street, and they decided f> reduce h.vs hoard to 10s a week, in return for which he did odd jobs. Plaintiff was never a porter, nor even an cmoloyeo, , and he had always been treated with the respect due to a guest. His (hanged fortune had made no difference to. the treatment he received. Plaintiff had never mentioned wages, and a letter from Mr Murdoch was the first intimation any i of them had that he had a claim against them. He left the hotel on. December •!!, and had been in a few times since, hut had never mentioned the claim. His dry cleaning work at

times was a -source of inconvenience, and lie u-ed t!ie wash-house nearly every <lny, the drying room at times, while ho always got hot and cold water. He further concocted a “cleaner,” which was made on the premises, and in connection with which he used many of defendant’:; bottles. Plaintiff had never been given instruction to do anything, rather, on tb. ; > contrary, he offered to do things for them.

To Mr Paterson : Her brother prior to his departure for Australia, did much of the-work. She had never mice approached Warnnck and asked him to do work, although she admitted that he had often offered to help with work.

Frank Ballinger, a tailor, said he knew plaintiff who called on him about dune, in 1 !)•'](), re temporary use of

hi.s premises to do a littl-e pressing. Witnc-'y agreed to this, and the workhad been carried on- to date. Some week's plaintiff had worked as often

as four afternoons a week at pressing, the cleaning being done at the hotel. Hr .Murdoch : If he put in two and a half days at tliiy and a similar time time on dole work, he would not have much time for portering, would he?— I shouldn’t think so.

Did he make any complaint to you? —He complained about having to run massages, and l gained the impression that he way assisting at the hotel in return for hoard. Plaintiff later mentioned the case, and he said that he would he perfectly sMhfied if ho got the 10s a week refunded.

V<ju would swear to that 7 —Yes. He swore in th s box that lie did not sav it. To .Mr Paterson, he said that plaintiff was not busy generally. To Hr Murdoch—The pressing would take longer than the cleaning. Did he do any pressing while he was supposed to he on the dole ?—Yes., One jy supposed to .work eight hours eight hours a day on the dole, you know.?—Yes, t know. Charles <T, P, Seller.?, a barrister and solicitor, sai-i he was r, relation of

defendant, and had resided at the

hotel for vi coasiaerabic tune

Mr Murdoch: Did they ever have a porter ?—No.

Did you notice any difference in the status of plaintiff at the hotel after the a'-Tungeinnt was niacte?—No. Plaintiff received the same treatment as the others.

Plaintiff was iu the passage one day, and had used strong language expressing the idea that lie did not wish to he seen working. Ho had never been pressed or ordered to run messages, and ha« always been addressed a s “Mr 'Warnock.”

Mr Murdoch : Did he ever say to you that lie had money coming to him? —Oh no, Mr Murdoch, lie never discussed such matters.

What was his attitude at the table "In'" lei “portering? --Ll used n< read every meal time.

That would not smack of the servant would it?—Certainly not.'

Did he often read?—He read during every meal time. Personally I was glad to see him reading, as it prevented conversation. The police called the Court to order, \vh n ths gallery “sinVed” loudly. Mr Paterson: You know that Warwick did some jobs about the hotel ?—• Oh yes. Certainly. Mr Murdoch: Plaintiff took up an unreasonable time at die table even for a boarder ?—Yes. Mr Pate ,- son said that plaintiff did certain work, and was entitled to the minimum wage. Mr Murdoch contended there was no contract. The Magistrate* said the question was whether, he was employed. Plaintiff swory fie was, but the defence was a denial. He had made application for relief, and in filling in the declaration h 0 fi,.ncr’i’ied himself a s the employer and “dry cleaner” as his oocupat'o.n. He Ivd been a fsonrdor with defendant for eighteen months, anil it appeared he .asked the manageress tin give him some relief as h fl was-.up against it, which wa s agreed to, too beard being reduced, to 10s a week. Plaintiff had carried out considerable other works sinc ? then. Either what he ,- s aid in the unemployment declaration form, or what he said in the box to-day was false, and no claim, for wages bad been made until, this, and h e would have been up again s t it ha 7. it not been fo. r the good 'heartedness of defendants.

The Magistrate maintained that there never had been an engagement as porter, and plaintiff was not entitled to recover wages. Plaintiff would therefore be' non-suitc : d.

Judgment- was given for defendant with full costs.