ACCOMMODATION AT FLAXMILLS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXV, Issue 1188, 23 December 1913, Page 3

ACCOMMODATION AT FLAXMILLS.

AN INTERESTING CASE

DEPARTMENTS CASE FAIES

During last session of Parliament the question of suitable accommodation for shearers and agricultural labourers (which includes flaxmill employees') was discussed and as a result a Bill was passed making it compulsory for employers to provide suitable accommodation for their men. Regulations laying down conditions in connection with same were, in due course, gazetted, and the employers concerned were served with notices calling upon them to bring the accommodation provided for their employees up to the standard set out in the regulations. The first case of an alleged failure to comply with the regulations was heard at Friday’s sitting of the Magistrate’s Court, when the Inspector of Factories proceeded against F. S. Easton, flaxmiller of Foxton. The information was that the defendant, having been served with a notice from the Chief Inspector of Factories, as prescribed by section 10 of the Shearers’ and Agricultural Labourers’ Accommodation Act 1908, calling upon him to provide accommodation for his flaxmill workers as required by the regulations under the above-mentioned Act as applying lo flaxmill and sawmill workers, did fail to comply with the terras of such notice. Therefore, the complainant applies for such order, under section 14 of the said Act as the court may deem fit. Mr R. A. Holland conducted the case on behalf of the Department, and Mr R, Moore appeared for defendant. Mr Holland said this case was the first case of the kind brought before the court. Defendant was the owner of the Titoki mill, situated about to 5 miles from Foxton. There were about 16 men employed in and about the mill. At the present time there was practically no accommodation there for these men. Notice had been served on defendant on

August 27th calling upon him to provide the. necessary accommodaTi tion, but this had not been done. Constable Woods, in evidence, itated that on July 31st in company with the Inspector ot Factories he had visited the Titoki mill and had made a report to the Department. At that time there 18 men employed in and about the mill and no accommodation was provided for them at the mill, but about half a mile distant there was a cottage occupied by a carter named Smith, who took in two or three of the employees as boarders. Since then nothing had been done in the way of providing accommodation. Most of the men employed bad to ride in and out from Fox-ton-each day. ”“ r To Mr Moore: On the occasion of their visit on July 31st he did not hear the conversation between Mr Easton and the Inspector. The Inspector said to him (witness) afterwards that Easton would have to provide accommodation. A number of the men employed at the mill had their homes in Foxton, but the regulations laid down that accommodation must be provided. He took it that if accommodation were provided the men would live at the mill. -4Eo Mr Holland : He took it that the three cottages situated about Mlf a mile irom the mill were private houses and had nothing to do with the mill at all. Men had complained to him that there was no accommodation. To Mr Moore: He knew the cottages belonged to Easton. Richard Alfred Holland stated that in conversation with defendant when he visited the mill at the end of July he understood him to say that the majority of the men lived in their own homes in Foxton and that the three cottages in question were occupied by farm hands, one of whom took in boarders. Easton asked him if he considered everything satisfactory and he said he could not say at the time but would have to give the matter consideration. Subsequently a requisition calling upon him to provide the necessary accommodation was served on Easton. If a suitable boardinghouse was situated within a mile of a mill the regulations in connection with the providing of accommodation could be suspended. To Mr Moore : The requisition to was served on Easton long before the summons was issued. He was given ample time, to comply with the regulations. He knew that the majority of the men employed lived in Foxton, but the regulations provided that the accommodation must be there. Admitted that the Act might not mean accommodation must be provided whether it was needed or not. He didn’t think it was reasonable to. expect millers to provide accomodation that would never be used. Mr Moore here put in a certificate to the following effect, signed by 12 of the men employed at the mill: "We, the undersigned, employees of Mr F. S. Easton, working at his Titoki flaxmill, certify that the'accommodation provided is well within a mile distant of our work and is more than sufficient for our requirements, being two four-roomed cottages. That if other accommodation were provided we would not avail ourselves of it. That those of us whose il%jes are marked have our homes *iff*Foxton and prefer to ride to and from our work, and that we have been in Mr Easton’s employ for the period stated opposite our names." Mr Holland said the accommodation did not deal with the future, He bad-spoken to two or three of msu and they had stated that

they preferred lo stay iu Foxton. Mr Moore said that the majority of the men didn’t want to live at the mill. He contended that the Act did not mean that accommodation must be provided if it were not required by the men. The defendant had provided accommodation sufficient for the men who desired to stay there and he considered that was all that was required by the Act. It was not the intention of the statute that a miller should provide accommodation in advance for all the men he might employ in the future. It was a sufficient compliance with the enactment if the miller made provision for all the employees he had at the time who wished to stay at the mill. Frederick Spencer Easton, in evidence, stated that when Messrs Holland and Woods made their inspection in July he fully expected they would also inspect the cottages. He was led to believe by Mr Holland that everything was satisfactory. The majority of the men employed at the mill were married men with homes in Foxton and’ they preferred to live at their homes and had signed a certificate to this effect. There were two fourroomed cottages within half a mile of the mill which Were available for the accommodation of the men and they also more than complied with the regulations. For some time one of these was conducted as a boardinghouse and from two to four men stayed there. They were all that required accommodation. He had had no complaints from the men as to any lack of accommodation. To Mr Holland : He had never refused to provide accommodation for the men nor had any man refused employment on the ground that there was no accommodation for him. The cottages are ample accommodation for all the requirements at the mill. To Mr Moore : If additional accommodation were necessary later on he would be prepared to provide it, Frederick Henry Meyer, builder, stated that he had examined the cottages, which more than complied with the regulations. There was sufficient accommodation for 22 individuals. There was 14560 feet of air space and 1600 feet of floor space. A plan of the cottages was produced in court.

Michael O’Reilly stated that during the time be was employed at the mill he boarded with a man named Smith iu one of the cottages. He bad done so because Smith had told him that if he didn’t stay there he would lose his job. He would have preferred to stay with his people in Foxton. The Magistrate said that it was very necessary that accommodation should be provided at the mills, but in this case the mill was quite close to Foxton and the majority of the men preferred to live iu Foxton. In any case he must take it that it had been proved that the accommodation provided was ample for the requirements and therefore no order would be made.