BREACH OF FLAXMILLS’AWARD.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXV, Issue 1140, 30 August 1913, Page 3

BREACH OF FLAXMILLS’AWARD.

WORKING ON SATURDAY AFTERNOON. At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning before Mr J. W. Poynlonj S.M., the Inspector of Awards, W. ]. Culver, proceeded against Coley and Bock, flaxmillers, to recover the sum of as a penalty for a breach of the Manawatu Flaxmills Employees’ Award, dated March i6th, 1910, and- amendment to same dated April 4th, 1911. The claim was that defendants employed twelve men after 1 p.m. on Saturday, June 14th, 1912, and thus failed to observe the amendment to the Award. Claims for breaches of the Award were also preferred against the men concerned : James Hartley, Frank Vertongen, Frank Spiers, John Bonfield, E. Frances, Edward Murphy, Duncan Rockell, William Neville, William Coley, Cave Rand, George Hillman and / William Currie. Mr Moore, on behalf of Messrs Coley and Bock, said the defendants admitted that the men worked on the afternoon in question. Had the men not done so defendants were in danger of loss to their property. Mr Moore read correspondence which bad passed between defendant and the Inspector. The first letter from defendants, after notification had been received by them, expressed regret if such had been the case and pointed out that they had not seen the amendment to the Award. They admitted working the men on the afternoon in question for which they had paid them at the rate of time and a quarter, and stated that it was a case of special emergency and the object of working the men was to save property. The Inspector replied to this letter stating that the explanation had been carefully considered by the Department, but in view of the decision in a previous case in which work had been done on a Saturday afternoon it could not be accepted as a reasonable excues. The defendants admitted that a technical breach had been coml mittsd, but the circumstances ■ were such that it could not be looked upon as a very serious one. Mr Culver said that it could 1 hardly be said that the defendants knew nothing of the amendment to the Award as same was made in consequence of a decision in a case jin when men working for a contractor employed by defendant worked on Saturday afternoons. In that case the Magistrate gave his decision in favour of the contractor and an appeal was lodged. Judge Sim, of the Arbitration Court, upheld the Magistrate’s decision, but stated that It was the intention of the Court at the time the Award was made to absolutely h prohibit work on Saturday afternoons, but when the Award was drafted this clause was omitted. He consequently made an amendment at the end of sub-clause b of clause 1 of the Award as follows : “W6.rk of any kind after 1 p.m. on Saturday is prohibited save where necessary for the purpose of saving property from destruction by fire, flood or otherwise.” Mr Culver submitted that the work in questipn was not necessary as there was no risk of loss to property. Further, the work could have been ' done on the Friday afternoon or Saturday morning. The defendants had sent the mill bands to do the work in question, because the paddockers refused to do it on the ground that it was not necessary to be done on that afternoon, Mr Moore contended that the miller should be in a better position than the employees to decide what work was necessary and it was not likely that the employer would pay men at the rale of time and a quarter to do work if the same work could be done at other times'at ordinary rates ol pay. The Magistrate said a breach had been committed and gave judgment for plaintiff for £5 against employer and £1 each against the men.