ALLEGED BREACH OF AWARD.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 492, 9 October 1909, Page 3

ALLEGED BREACH OF AWARD.

At the Magistrate’s Court ou Wednesday, the following cases of alleged breaches of the Butchers’ Award and Shops and Offices Act were heard: —

The Inspector of Awards proceeded against Easton and Co., for employing J. F. de Ridder as a general hand, and not paying him the award rate of wages.

The Inspector of Factories proceeded against the same firm for employing de Ridder as a shopman, and not paying his wages weekly. J. F. de Ridder proceeded against Easton and Co., for three months wages, at £2 10s a week, as a general hand. All the cases were taken together. Mr Cooper, of Palmerston N., appeared for the defendants. Evidence was given by J. F. de Ridder that he had been employed by Charles Easton us a clerk at 15s a week, which was to be taken off the meat account he or his wife owed the firm. He accordingly credited himself with £3 on the books against his meat account each month. He ha*d received £ x 12s 6d in cash during the last three months he was there. He had alsb been employed by Charles Easton (whom he regarded as manager after the business had been taken over by Easton and Co.) to mind the shop, serve customers and deliver meat in various parts of the town. He considered this was outside his original contract, for acting as clerk and keeping the books. He was employed as a general hand or shopman and the award rate of wages for that was £2 10s a week. Cross-examined by Mr Cooper : Did not remember exactly how many orders he took. He served about 30 customers, some almost daily and others frequently. Did not know much about butchering, but could sella beef steak or a pound of chops. Could not say whether Sid Easton had expressly told him to do this work, but he knew he expected it. Constable Woods gave evidence that he had seen de Ridder riding in the township on Easton and Co.’s horse carrying parcels in paper as if delivering meat, but could not say whether it was meat.

Constable Sweeney gave similar evidence.

1,. Arnott said he had been employed in the shop and had seen de Ridder there, bat he had left more than three months previously, and could not say what de Ridder had done since he (witness) had left. F. Bryant said he had been employed with Easton and Co., and had seen de Ridder serving in the shop and knew he had taken meat out to customers.

A. E. Shadbolt said he had been employed at Easton and Co. ’s shop for about a week and had seen de Ridder in the shop and had known him to take meat out to one customer. Witness added that there was very little for de Ridder to do. His Worship said that he could not hold that defendants were bound to pay de Ridder any more than the 15s agreed on. Though de Ridder was supposed to be employed on the books only, it was not unreasonable that he should do other small jobs about the shop without extra pay. The serving of customers and delivery of meat occasionally could not bring him under award. The charges for breach of award and of the Shops and Offices Act would be dismissed, and on the claim for wages judgment would be for defendants, with £z 2s costs.