CLAIM FOR WAGES.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVI, Issue 4848, 3 July 1925, Page 2

CLAIM FOR WAGES.

AGREEMENT IN DISPUTE. CASE ADJOURNED. At the Paeroa Magistrate's Court on Wednesday, before Mr J. H. Salmon, S.M., Ernest Kibble, labourer, Paeroa (Mr R. S. Carden), proceeded against Messrs Short Bros. (Mr E. A. Porritt), carriers, Paeroa, claiming £4 10s as wages due in lieu of notice for alleged wrongful dismissal oh May 16 last. A second claim was made for 54 hours overtime at 2s 1 5-7 d an hour, alleged to have been due for the period from March 2 to May 16. Plaintiff said that he had been engaged by Short Br<*s. as a carter on March 2 at a wage of 16s a day. The first pay was a fortnight’s wages, amounting to £B. The amount was queried, and he advised defendants that unless the wages agreed on were paid he would give notice. On pointing out. the long hours he was expected to work, the defendants agreed to pay £4 10s a week, plus overtime. Defendants, shortly after the third payment was made, increased the wages by £2, which covered the full month. No overtime had been received or wages in lieu of notice of dismissal. He had never signed for the wages leceived, and had not been asked to supply an account of the overtime worked. Plaintiff admitted that he had attended the second day’s races at Paeroa, but with the consent of the defendants. The time so lost was later made up. He did not belong to any union, and was not under any award that he knew of. He often worked from 10 to 12 hours a day. To Mr Porritt plaintiff denied that he had been paid £4 10s a week for the first two weeks of his employ-' ment, and said that he had never agreed to work for £4 10s a week and no overtime. He had given defendants a week’s notice that he intended to leave, but they had told him to. pack, up and get out of it there and then. It was for that week that the claim for wagcis was made. He maintained that the list of overtime claimed for was correct in every particular.

To Mr Carden plaintiff said that lie had made repeated applications to defendants for the week’s pay in lieu of Notice, and also for the overtime. Thomas H. Tucker, labourer, Paeroa, said that at various times he had been employed by the defendants to drive horse teams, and had also worked with plaintiff, and was familiar with the hours which plaintiff had worked. He had been paid for all the work that he had done for the defendants. His Worship asked if the defendants were not bound under an award. Mr Porritt produced evidence to tshow that there was an award in existence, but that neither party was bound by it. His Worship remarked that if was a pity the award did not cover the action. Charles C. Short, carrier, Paeroa, for the defence, explained that plaintiff had been engaged at .the rate of £4 a week plus overtime. Plaintiff had complained about the wages not being enough, and an arrangement was entered into whereby plaintiff agreed to accept £4 10S a' week and no overtime. An additional sum had been paid to bring the payment for the first two weeks up to the £4> 10s. Plaintiff agreed fully to the arrangement, and said that it was quite satisfactory to him. Plaintiff was expected to work from 7.30 a.ni. to 5 p.m., plus stable attendance, with an hour off for lunch. Witness said that it was the usual custom to regard attendance on horses while in the stable as part of a driver’s duties. He contended that plaintiff on two occasions had been paid overtime at the'rate of 2s an hour. Plaintiff had not claimed .overtime, nor had he ever submitted a- statement of the overtime worked. He denied that plaintiff had been wrongfully dismissed, or that any overtime was due. Plaintiff had been shown every consideration in view of the fact that he was a married man, and they didnot desire to get rid of him so long as he did his work.

Cross-examined by Mr Carden, witness said that he did not keep details of the wages paid to casual drivers. Plaintiff had proved himself a willing worker, but he was unsuitable for the work. He had been kept on because he was a married man and had expressed a desire to learn the trade. To the Bench defendant said that his book-keeper kept, an account of all the wages paid, and he believed that the entries were made in the book daily. He could not account for a difference in the dates shown in the cash-book. Overtime had actually been paid, in spite of the fact that it had been arranged to pay £4 10s and no overtime. ■ Eric King, driver for defendants, said that he Was employed at the rate of £4 10s and no overtime. The hours were from 7.30 a.ni. to 5 p.m. with no extra payment for work in the stables. On Saturday he wc rked from 7.30 a.m. till 1 p.m. Overtime was paid for on Saturday afternoons at the rate of 2s an hour. He had worked with the .plaintiff, who did not turn to so early as he did in the mornings. Thomas S. Short, the other defendant, gave corroborative evidence relating to the engaging of plaintiff and the rate of wages agreed upon. Jack Ludwig, brewery-hand, Paeroa, said that he had been asked by plaintiff to go to Court and swear that he had seen plaintiff working overtime, but he had told plaintiff that he would not tell lies for anyone. Plaintiff had told him that the defendants had not dismissed him, but that he had left on his own account. T. H. Tucker, recalled, stated to the Bench that for three days’ worli defendants had paid him £2 ss. His Worship pointed out that this statement did not coincide with ■ the point made hy Mr Porritt that the £2 5s represented partly overtime. Robert H. Killgour stated that the

evidence of Ludwig was untrue, as Ludwig had said on the occasion mentioned by him that he had seen plaintiff working late at night on several occasions. Ludwig had also agreed to give evidence to that effect. The case was adjourned until August 10, when additional evidence would be produced on behalf of both parties.