BREACHES OF SHOPS AND OFFICES ACT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 1032, 28 November 1912, Page 3

BREACHES OF SHOPS AND OFFICES ACT.

TWO CONVICTIONS RECORDED. At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday 7 morning before Mr A. D. Thomson S.M., Charles Thomas Easton, butcher, of Foxtou, was charged on the information of the Inspector of Factories (W. J. Culver), with three breaches of the Shops and Offices Act. The charges were; (i) That be being the occupier of a shop within the meaning of the Shops and Offices Act, 1908, did fail to allow one William Bowling, a shop assistant within the meaning of the said Act, a holiday from one o’clock in the afternoon of one working day in the week as required by section 2 of the said Act. (2) That he did employ one William Bowling for a longer period than 52 hours (excluding meal time) in or about the premises of such shop. (3) That be did fail to keep a _ wages and overtime took as required by the said Act and its amendments. Mr Culver conducted the case on behalf of the Department, and defendant, who was not represented by counsel, put in a plea that the man In question was not in his employ but was working for his brother Sidney, who supplied defendant with meat delivered into the shop. Mr Culver said that Bowling was employed iu and about defendant’s shop, although the work be did in connection with slaughtering might have nothing to do with the defendant. He called the following evidence William Bowling stated that he was employed at Easton’s shop. His work was to cut up the meat and get it ready for the carts, also to serve customers and make the sausages. He generally commenced work about 5.30 a.m. and finished somewhere about 5.30 p.m. Since Mr Charles Easton had been in the shop he bad had three Wednesday afternoons off. Previous to that he had no half holidays, but if he wanted a day off sometimes he got it. He had worked in connection with the butchery business for the past 10 or 12 years. He did the killing on Sundays which occupied some three or four hours. All the meat killed was brought to the shop. He never kept a record of the time he worked each week, but supposed it would average between 60 and 70 hours. He was employed by Sidney Easton, who paid him his wages, but he took his orders from the defendant. He understood that Sidney Easton supplied the meat delivered iu the shop, and Charles Easton retailed it from there. He didn’t know who bought the stock. His wages were £5 8s per fortnight with a room over the shop rent free. Up to five or six weeks ago he also got bis meals. To ' the Magistrate : Sidney Easton sometimes gave him orders in reference to killing. His work was to get the meat ready for the carts iu the morning and get them away, which occupied from 5.30 o’clock until seven. Fie then remained in and about the shop until defendant returned, somewhere about midday. In the afternoon he did the slaughtering and brought the meat into the shop.

Constable Woods, local Inspector of Factories, said the shop was registered in delendant’s name, and all notices in connection with same were sent to defendant.

On being asked defendant said he did not wish to give evidence. The Magistrate said there was no doubt that Bowling was doing defendant’s work, although he was apparently being paid by Sidney Easton. He didn’t think defendant was deliberately breaking the law In the matter, but the circumstances constituted a breach. Although Bowling was working between 60 and 70 hours per week, his work in and about the shop did not occupy 52 hours. The position was that he was doing work for two different employers. The charge in connection with longer hours would therefore be dismissed. On the charge of iailing to give a half holiday, defendant was convicted, and on the other charge a conviction was also recorded and a fine of 10s with costs 7s was inflicted.