COURT NEWS

Opotiki News, Volume II, Issue 182, 15 May 1939, Page 3

COURT NEWS

BLEACHES OF MOTOR HEGULA- • TIOJNS The' following cases were heard at the monthly sitting of the Opotiki Aiagistra-te’s Court: — Paul Te Kane was proceeded against by Inspector Delves for failing "to Laves a- current warrant of fitness for a motor-cycle lie was. using. , Defendant tokl the court lie was only the rider of the. machine. He was convicted and ordered to pay costs. AI. O. Kidd (Mr. Hodgson) was charged by Inspector Dt'lvcs with failure to. notify .change of ownership of a motor-vehicle. The inspector said lie was at ALaraenui and stopped a man named Parkinson and checked up on the ownership of the vehicle. Air. Hodgson informed the court that the transfer' papers were made cmt immediately and Parkinson had offered to hand the paper in to the P. 0., but forgot tci do so. Defendant didn’t know the. transfer had not been registered. A fine of 10s with costs was imposed. Janies T. Parkinson was charged with using a car, the transfer of which had not been notified, and also using a car without a current warrant of fitness. Defendant told the court ho had been "delayed on the way to the Post Office and as ho could only be in town on Saturdays he was not able to secure the warrant of fitness owing to the 10-liour week. Defendant was fined 10s with costs on each charge. ORDER FOR POSSESSION Alessrs. AicGrevy Bros. (Air. East) asked for an order of possession against Airs. Jamieson. A report by an inspector on the condition ol the premises was handed to Air. Walton, but the magistrate said lie would have nothing toi do with the report, widen was in a shocking condition. Judgment was given for plaintiff for arrears of rent- and an order made fur possession of the house in two months.

BREACH OF AWARD COMPANY FINED 'Hie Inspector of Awards (Air. D. Bray-shay) proceeded against Al. O. Kidd Ltd. (AIT. Hodgson) for a breach of the New Zealand Alotor Mechanics Award. Two. claims were put in by the inspector, who asked that in the event of the first claim being success--1 ul. the secondi claim should be with drawn. The inspector stated that under Clause (i of the. award, the defendant company had failed to pay a garage attendant the award rates. Air. Brayshay, in evidence, said he had been approached by Air. Kidd, who proposed to open nn a service station. Mr. Wilcox had been living alongsidethe garage site- Mind Air. Kidd asked what the conditions and award rates of pay would lie. He explained the position to Air. Kidd. He returned to Opotiki after seme months and had a complaint that Air. Kidd was employing a man on a commission basis Air. Kidd denied this but was in doubt as to the hours the employee worked. He went into the matter fully and found the attendant had worked! from To to CO hours weekly. The rate of pay did not approach £5 weekly and overtime. Examined hv Air. Hodgson, the inspector said lie had tolcl Air. Kidd that if Air. Wilcox was being employed as a casual lie was not paying him the casual rates. An argument took place at this stage between the inspector and Mr. Hodgson as to whether the employee was a casual or not. Air. Hodgson said that .defendant omployedl Air. Wilcox toi work 3 hours per night for five days per week from 5.30. to 8.30. o’clock, on Saturday from 1.30 p.lll. to 9.30 p.m. On Sunday he was to be an attendant for 18 hours. Air. Hodgson stated that Air. Kidd's original inquiry was from Air. Goodacre. The inspector at this stage of proceedings gave a list of hours stated to have been worked by Air. Wilcox. To Air. Hodgson, the inspector stated that- All’. Wilcox was indefinite as to the hours he was supposed to work. Air. Wilcox had also asked! on what basis bis money was paid but be bad received no statement. Air. Brayslnn then read 'an extract- from a letter from Al'r. Wilcox, in which the lattei stated he was not sure of the condition * governing his employment. / The inspector then called Air. A. E.

Wilcox to give evidence. Witness said he was employed by the defendant company from February-23rd. He had been employed by Air; Kiddl to attend entirely to benzine, oil and sometimes the free air. He was to live on the premises and his salary was to be abcut £5 weekly. It was to be a permanent job. ’ In reply to a question by the magistrate, witness said lie had charge of the bowsers right through the night.

To the inspector, witness said that after the Christinas holidays a lie'll had been bought by tliei foreman, -Air. J'. Ross,- and fixed By witness. Air. Kidd did not object- to the boll. Cross-examined by Air. Hodgson witness saidl that after some time it was suggested that he should be paid o.u a commission basis.; Tlio average sale of benzine was -JSU gallons per week by himself. The sales were increasing all the time owing to witness being in attenclanc© at night. Continuing, witness said he had spoken to Air. Lendrum (secretary) about the difficulties in hours and he had asked for instructions in writing. He did not remember Air. Lendrum saying if he served customers after hours, that was his own responsibility. He remembered signing the wages book but thought the hours were filled in later. He made a point of going to the pictures once each week aim arranged for someone else to watch the benzine pumps. He also made a point of attend the 8 a.ni. church service. He could not remember going to the 11 a.m. service. Air. R. J. G. Lendrum, secretary oi the defendant company, in evidence, said that to his knowledge, Air; Kidd had discussed the matter with Air. Good'acrc, who told him that lie could not pay Air. AA’ilcox on a commission basis. He also heard Air. Brayshay speak to Air. Kidd. AYitness and Air. Kidd then looked at the award and found they had to pay- 2/7 hourly. The hours and rate of pay were filled in before the book was signed. That was the usual practice. Air. AA'alton: 'That- is not true. The others are not filled in. Only AA iieox’s hours are filled in. Witness explained that the other employees were all on the -iO-hcui week, lie had discu.ssed with Mr. AA’ilcox the question of hours and he had told Mr. AVifeox on at least two occasions what his hours were supposed to be. it- was a practice to charge an opening fee at night. Nothing was said to Air. AA'ilcox about an opening fee but they were aware that Air. AA'ilcox was retaining the opening fee. No deduction in hours was made for Air. AAolcox’s meal times. On one occasion Air. AA'ilcox spoke to him about going to an evening service. Air. AA’ilcox had not. been required to be on duty after 8.30 p.m. Or ass-ex a mined by the inspector, witness said he thought the inspector and Air. Kidd had spoken about the rate of pay in the office. Air. Brayshay however, informed witness time the discussion took place outside the garage. AA itness, however, .said he was sure the inspector had spoken to Air. Kidd in the office. In reply to another question b\ the inspector, witness said he would not know what hours Air. AA ilcox was working. He was not aware of any objection to tll'c -bell being put on the doorway. They, knew Mr. AA ileox was serving benzine after bis usual hours. To Air. Hodgson, witness said) that Air. AA'ilcox had never asked tor overtime or protested against the amount received for wages. To the court-, Air. Hodgson said that although' Air. AA'ilcox was on duty the hours of work would be very much less. Most cf the time would have been spent in bed. Air. AA'alton saidl the defendant company was in business as garage proprietors and engaged Air. AA'ilcox as an adult- garage attendant. He presumed- tlie company knew lieu the.} could employ the attendants. Hie only satisfactory basis was £o per week. Plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the sum of £2 and costs. flic second claim was withdrawn by permission of the court.