BREACH OF AWARD.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIX, Issue 5277, 21 May 1928, Page 2

BREACH OF AWARD.

LOCAL BUTCHER CONVICTED. UNDERPAYMENT OF WAGES. At tlie local. Magistrate’s, Court on Friday last Messrs: Vuglar, and Co., butchers., Paeroa,, were, proceeded against by the inspector of awards and factories (Mr F. Wilson), Hamilton, on a charge of employing a youth named D. Hayes as an assistant during tile period fijom February 13 to March 17, 1928, and failing to pay him the minimum ra.te of wages for a. youth aged 16 years. The sum of £lO was claimed for the breach of the award.

Mr E. A. Pprritt appeared for tlie defendants., and entered a plea of guilty. F. Wilson, inspector of factories, Hamilton, produced a copy of the Award and stated that the boy had just turned 16 years of age. On February 22 witness said lie v'sited Vug~ hi.r’s shop and found that Hayes was being paid £1 a week, but there was no wages book. At the request of tne defendant he did not prosecute then on condition that .matters were put on a proper footing. In March lie wrote to Vuglar and again pointed out that Hayes should be receiving 3'ss a week, aiMd asked that a cheque for the differenee in wages be sent to him and he in turn would forward it to Hayes. In April defendant wrote to him and said that matters between himself and Hayes had bee,n satisfactorily adjusted . Witness said- he then forwarded a, receipt, which he asked <lefendant to see that Hayes sighed and returned to him. From inquiries made he learned that Hayes alleged that he bad signed the receipt (produced), but the body was covered: so that he could not see what he was signing. N'o .money passed betweeji Vug'hir and. Hayes. He had learned that morning that Hayes was still receiving £1 a Week.

Mr Porritt explained that Vuglar was not aware of the Award. The facts were hot disputed' regarding the vis : t of the inspector. The boy was. not worth more than £1 a week, but after the visit of the inspector the arrears, amounting to £4 10s, were handed to the boy’s guardian, Mr E. M. Lennon. The boy wa's, quite right in stating that he had received no money. It was pure ignorance on the part of the defendant, said Mr Porritt, and he asked that a. nominal penalty be imposed. The magistrate said; that there appeared to be an attempt to deceive the department. A conviction and line of £5 would be entered with witness’s expenses amounting to £1 0s 6d.