MILITARY TRAINING.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 4976, 19 May 1926, Page 2

MILITARY TRAINING.

RESPONSIBILITY OF EMPLOYERS!. TAURANGA EMPLOYER FINED £lO. A case of considerable interest to employers and employees occupied the attention of the Magistrate, Mr Kenrick, at the Magistrate’s Court, Tauranga, on Thursday, May ,6, when W. H. Gifford, proprietor of the Bay of Plenty Times, was proceeded against by the Defence Department, under section 57 df .the Defence Amendment Act, 1912, “that he did penalise onc ; W. F. Bickers, a person in his einployment. a.nd required to serve in the territorial force, for rendering the personal service required of him under part VI. of the Defence Act, 1909, by dismissing him from such employment.”

The section in,question reads: “(1) Ever? person fe liable tb a, fine not exceeding £2O who prevents or attempts to prevent any person in his employment and required to sjerve in the Senior Cadets or General Training section of Territorial Force from reg-istering-or taking the oath Of air legiance, or rendering the personal service required of him by Parti 3 pr Part 6 of the Principal Act, or in any way penalises such last-mentioned person for registering or taking the oath of allegiance or rendering such service, whether by •reducing his wages ‘or deducting therefrom any money, or by dismissing him from the employment, or In any other matter whatsoever.” ;

The ’defence alleged that Bickers had been given four weeks.’ holiday, during which time he had been paid. When applying for the/holiday it was alleged that he made no mention .of the fact that he would require leave to attend the Hauraki regimental camp, necessitating a, further seven days’ leave, from work.

Defendant admitted that he had. tolcl Bickers that, he could not attend tlie camp, and also, when it wajs. found that he had gone into camp, defendant admitted having written to the area, officer pointing out that Bickers had left for camp in defiance of instructions, and that if he did not return by .the first available .train it would be taken _ajs an indication that he wished to relinquish his position, which would be filled, and the circumstances brought under the notice of the Minister of Defence. Bickers had declined to return, and in any 'case the Defence Authorities would not allow him to return. After hearing considerable evidence the Magistrate, in inflicting a fine of £lO, with costs 7is, and witness’ expenses for Bickers of 10's, isald that defendant had taken upon himseW the brunt of the boy not going ,to camp, but the boy too, would haye had to suffer something, inasmuch as he would have probably hafl to put in another year’s training in the territorials. The offeree was a serious one, and he was sorry that defendant should have taken up the attitude he did.