Hut Accommodation Case.

Maoriland Worker, Volume 2, Issue 32, 13 October 1911, Page 8

Hut Accommodation Case.

- : —>■'■' : : : , v i"■ QUEENSLAND COURT'S EJECISION^;

The Brisbane Full Court recently delivered judgment in tlie ' appeal by Leonard M. GrcenaAvay, of Eelton,station, against a Toowoomba magistrate's decision in imposing penalties for breaches of the Queensland -Shearers' Accemmod'atibn Act. . V ' '.;,/'' The .Chief Justice,;'.in delivering tlie judgment of the Court, said tlie application was to- quash. three conyictions.V The first complaint Avas that, in'breach of regulation 14 of the Act, .theVapjJel■lant had neglected to pro vide, pjroper receptacles for all refuse from .diningrooms and cooking places ,at Fellvori; the second that, .in breach, of .regiila-' tion 21, he-had, neglected.'to *r.e.m.6y,e ■ all refuse from the , dining-rooms, or cooking, places to a distance of at le&st', 100 yards from those places;, and' the'' third that,v in breach,of regulation 26, ; he had neglected to, provide proper* urns or.pots for the distribiitidn, pi tea.<' or coffee, with tight-fitting lids and spouts or taps. There was evidence, that, the employer ."had not complied Avith .-,the. regulations, and -that A'essels pi'ovided for tIW distribyiitipji ; of' tea Avere buckets with a dipper attjaclied. .-■.-.•■ , : ~.",';, '~;.;' They (their- Honours) - were asked to quash the convictions on the --grounds (l)'- ; that the regulations Avere invalid; (2); that if th<b regulations were'valid, the applicant was exempt therefrom by reason of section-7 of the Shearers' and Svgad 1 Workers' Accommodation ■ Amendment Act of 1906; (3) that; if : the regulations were and applied to the applicalit,'there AVas no liability to the penalty imposed by the ; regulactions,or - any penalty until failurfe-d>y-him to comply thereAvith after 'notice from the inspector, - and- subsequent; proceedings before justices, and <theirorder, as provided by sections IT-aiid 12 of the Shearers and Sugar' Workers' : Accommodation Act of 1905. There was'no evidence-of-any notice ol" proceeding under .section 11. The regular tions were made under' the authority** given in section 5 of the -Ae't' ; of ; l9o6, to be read as section 17 of the Act of 1905. His Honour quoted that section, and section 6of the Act. Among otherprovisions . were : "(k) "Every employer', shall provide for his shearers or Sugar Avorkers a sufficient supply of good ! drinking water;" and "(n) Proper cooking and washing vessels shall proA T ided by the employer." Section 7 cf the Act of 1906 provided: ing contained in ths Act shall for a period of five years from the passing, thereof, or any such regulations, be deemed to render improper or" insufficient or to prejudice any -building, compartment, or accommodation heretofore laAvfully erected or provided by any employer in accordance with" the' requirements and provisions of the principal Act, or in respect, of the erection and provision Avhereof a.-eon--tract has been made and signed on. or before - the first day of •-. "December, 1906." They (their Honours) could-.see nothing contrary to the provisions of the Act in regulations 14, 21, or 26. Itwas argued that,. as section . 7 of the, Act of 1905 imposed upon the persons occupying any room or building not being a shearing shed or sugar works tlie duty of keeping .such room or building clean, regulations 14 and 21 Avere contrary to that section, as they, required tho employer to provide a receptacle for the refuse and to remove the same at a distance.from the building and to bury or burn the same.. They' thought that the regulations might be read so as. not. to be inconsistent with that section. Persons entitled to the protection given .by it Avere not thereby relieved from liability to make such provisions for the comfort and health of their employees as they could have been ordered to make before the Act of 1906 was passed. The duty of removel of refuse might not arise until it was plaoed in the.i-e----ceptacles and taken outside the building, and the duty of providing a receptacle did not seem in any way repugnant to the provisions Avhich required tho occupant to keep the room clean. As to regulation 26, it Avas. argued that section 6.0f tlie Act of 1905 provided only for cooking vessels .and Avashing utensils, but that Avas clearly a minimum fixed by the Act for the supply of which the employer wars, riable, notwithstanding any contract to the contrary by the shearers. Where, hoAvever, by the terms of the employment other things proper for accommodation had to be supplied by the employer, they (their Honours) thought there avcis nothing contrary to the Act in making regulations as to tlie nature, form, and description of such article, and even if no contract existed betAveen employer and employed as to, the supply of table utensils, they did not sco lioav they could hold that a regulation requiring the suppl}' of an article proper for use as a table requisite Avas contrary to the Act. Thoy therefore thought that tlie regulations ivere valid and binding. They thought also that section 7 of the Act, winch the' applicant had relied upon, did not exempt him from liability under the regulations, ' and that the penalties imposed by tlie regulations for non-com-pliance tliereAvitJi could be inflicted whenever the employer was summoned for breach'thereof'and the breach Avas proved. They thought that the order should be discharged, and the convictions affirmed, .Avith costs.