MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 1330, 28 November 1914, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

The monthly sitting of the Magistrate’s Court was held before Mr J. W. Poyntou; S.M., yesterday afternoon. UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment lor plaintiffs was entered up in the following undefended civil cases : —J. E. Gillespie v. Jos. Franklin, claim 16s 6d, costs ss; same v M. Smith, ns 6d, costs ss; same v. Hui Kerekehau, £2 8s 6d, costs 10s ; E. Healey v. Tuna Roiri, 16s, costs 16s; R. T. Betty v. M. Smith, 12s 6d, costs 5s W. Ross and Son, Ltd., v. W. and E. Brocklebank, £$ 13s, costs 10s ; H. Thompson v. S. A. Burnett, £2B, costs £1 14s : H. F. Strong v. D. Williams, £\ ss, costs 10s ; G. H. Stiles v. A. H. Lee. £1 17s 4d, costs ss; T. Rimraer v. Chamberlain, £3 5s 2d, costs 10s, and W. E. Riddle v. G. Jackson, £2 10s, costs 15s, and an order made for possession of tenement before December 7th.

defended case

In the case, R. A. Burnett v. Tuna Roiri, after hearing the evidence, judgment was entered Up for plaintiff for 19s Bd, with Court costs £2 10s, witness’ expenses 15s, and solicitors’ fee £1 ns.

BREACHES OF AWARDS. The Inspector of Factories (Mr W. J. Culver) proceeded against the Foston Cordage and Fiaxmilling Co., Ltd., for failing to keep a wages and overtime book, as required by Section 58 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act, 1908. Mr Culver said defendants employed several hands at their mills at Kanpitane on piecework on a class of work other than that which the Award stipulates may be done by piecewut k. The work was pressing uuscutched fibre and putting it across the river on a wire rope. No pay was fixed by the award for this kind of work, but a clause provided that for work not specified (which would include same) the minimum rate was to be one shilling per hour. The men in question were paid at the rate of five shillings per ton, and while Mr- Culver said he believed that this would work out at more than one shilling per hour, the defendants had not kept a record of the time worked by these men, and he was therefore unable to ascertain what rate of pay per hour they received. Under the circumstances the Department thought it best to take the case for the purpose of showing employers that a time and wages book must be kept in such cases.

Mr Moore, on behalf of defendants, pointed out that the action originated from the Flaxmills Employees’ Union, who had complained to the Labour Department and the Inspector bad been instructed to take the present action, though nothing was involved in the case more than a question of interpretation of the words of the award. It was a technical matter only in which there was no suggestion of any one being prejudiced. As the Inspector had admitted no injustice had been done the men, but on the contrary, the arrangement under which they wetfe working was to their advantage. The award provided that scutching and tramming could be dona by piecework, and Mr Moore pointed out that in this case the pressing of the bales was associated with scutching, and the crossing of the hemp over the river by a wire rope was the nearest approach to tramming which the circumstances would allow. He contended that to put these interpretations on clause 13 of the Award would not be unreasonable. It was not the intended that the Award should be construed too literally. A reasonably liberal construction should be adopted, It had been admitted by the inspector that the arrangement had benefited the meu, and he therefore considered this interpretation should be allowed. If this were done the defendants would not be committing an offence by ■ not keeping a time book for these men. Further, the defendants regarded this work more in the nature of contracting than not easy to draw the distinction between piece work and contract. By treating it as contracting there would be no breach in not keeping the records on which the action was founded. Counsel then dealt with the merits of the case and produced a certificate signed by two of the men concerned, in which they stated they would not undertake the work at the award rate of one shilling per hour—they preferred the present arrangement. The defendants were entirely innocent of any attempt to evade the Award, and bad only acted with a desire to benefit the men as far as possible. In view of all the circumstances, he submitted that it was a case in which no penalty should be imposed. The Magistrate said be was satisfied the defendants had no intention of breaking the award, but a technical breach had been committed, though it was certainly not a serious matter. A fine of ss, with costs 8s ad, was imposed.

John Walls was charged fay the Inspector with, from September 21st to October 17th, employing one Leonard Martin, an apprentice in his fourth six-monthly period of apprenticeship and paying him therefor 17s 6d per week instead of £l, as required by the Bakers’ Award. Mr Moore said defendant had asked him to say that he (defend* antj admiiud be made

mistake and paid insufficient wages in this instance. 4He was of opinion that the wage* he was paying were those required by the Award, the mistake having been made through his not having a copy of the award by him. He also said that the apprentice bad been previously paid above the award rate, and that during the time he had been there his total wages had amounted to more than if the award rate had been paid throughout. The Magistrate inflicted a fine of £2, with costs 8s 2d.