CLAIM FOR PENALTY.

Otaki Mail, 14 September 1923, Page 3

CLAIM FOR PENALTY.

! At the Magistrate's Court on Wed- ! nesday the Inspector of Awards sued \V. J. Barlow for a penally of £lO t'oi employing \V. J. Mills at ;i wage ol Is per hour instead of at the minim urn award rate of 2s l;Jd per hour. Mr. Atmoro appeared for defendant. , The Inspector said the claim was made under "The Abitration Act, l'H)S"' against defendant on the above grounds. The maximum penalty was £IOO. The. award was made on 3rd Januarv, 1923, and the minimum wage was 2s' 13d. AV. J. Mills sworn, said that he hail only received wages at the rate of Js [XT hour. Xo arrangement had been made as to the amount of wages he was fo receive. He was a qualified journeyr.i"n and entitled to full award wages. Mr. Atmore: Were you not an under rate worker .' Mills: Yes. but 1 have since received full award rates. Mr. Atmore: Did you make the application for a lower rate because you considered yourself incapable of earning the award rate.' Mills: Yes, but I had to do so to get n ink. I

Mr. At more: The award say?, "Any '.•lorkor who considers himself incapable of earning the award rate may make nil application." Did you not realise that you were reflecting on your qualifications'? Have you had 14 days notice from the Union Secretary terminating the agreement '. 31(11-: Xc That was in 192]. The permit only lasts for six mouths. I Lave since "received the full award rate. At this stage, Mills produced refcri rices as to his ability. Mr. Atinore: "This is to certify that •V. Mills who has been in our employ for two years is leaving us and we are satisfied—. Tones and Co." Xo doubt they were: to damn with faint praise! The Inspector said that the permit lasted for six mouths. in accordance, with the Factories Act, and that period had expired. i Mr. At.more on behalf of defendant contended that tile permit was for six months and continued in force until determined by 14 days notice from the secretary. Mills admitted that he had net received any such notice and the permit was therefore still in force. He produced the award. The Inspector said that the permit lasted for six months only, that there were cases to support that. If Mr. \ tin ore's contention were right he was still entitled to judgment as Mills had not been paid the permit rate of

'':.', 5s per we'ek. Mr. Atinore objected and said that the statement of claim was clearly for a penalty on the ground that the award rate of 2s 13d was not paid. The Inspector could not now amend his claim and seek to recover the penalty because the permit rate of £■"• 5s per week was not paid. The proper course was for Mills to sue for the balance owingf. His client admitted that a balance was owing, but he had a counter claim for board. "Barlow at the outset had agreed to pav Mills £3 10s per week. The Magistrate held that the permit was still in existence and gave judgment for defendant. He said that the award appeared to conflict with the Act.