DISPUTE OVER OVERTIME.

Shannon News, 24 December 1923, Page 3

DISPUTE OVER OVERTIME.

SEQUEL IN COURT. ACTION FOR BREACH OF AWARD. At the Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr J.. L. Stout, S.M. Joseph Lowden, Inspector of Awards, proceeded against Hector McLean for a breach of the Bakers and Pastrycooks' Award, alleging that deiendant had refused to pay Denis Moynihan ■oiyeitiuia due.,. . . The..lnspecto.r stated in evidence that on October 16 he . visited the premises. of .defendant and asked uitu about the arrangement he had wnui Moynihan regaruuig ovetuiue. McLean denied that overtime had been worked by Moyni'juu. lie believed there had .been trouble, between the parties oyer house rent., in reply to Mr Adams witness stated that he had given defendant an opportunity to explain beiore he brought the action. He produced a statement sworn to by Moynihan, of the amounts alleged to be due.

Denis Moynihan said he was engaged by defendant toy wire at £5 per week, with bread and house rent. He had never had. the. rent. , He had given the Inspector the sworn statement produced. It was correct. On Sep.teintoer 29th McLean came into the bakehouse to pay him and witness asked him why title wages book was made up in advance when he migtu have overtime. Defendant could not know how long the work would take. Defendant in reply told him not to work overtime, and witness replied that if he did not and goods, were spoiled he (witness) would be liable to a prosecution. Witness had worked overtime on various occasions and had asked for payment for it. Defendant lhad refused to pay and witness declined to. sign the wages book. On October 2 defendant had given him notice to quitIn reply to Mr Adams witness asserted that he claimed for the overtime before defendant gave him notice. Hiei admitted that he had gone down to Otaki on, September 26 to see about buying ia share in another business.

Defendant deposed that he had engaged Moynihan at £5 per week, with (bread for a family of eight, but had not agreed to. pay his rent. He had subsequently increased his wages to £6 per week. On September 26th . Moynihan had gone to. Otaki without saying anything to witness and left a casual hand to do his work. This led to the dispute on the i29th. Witness did not believe the. overtime claimed had been worked. The work was now being done toy two men without overtime, which three; men had done when Moynihan was in charge, of the bakehmouße. At the close of the evidence the Inspector' submitted that the overtime had been worked. Mr Adams held that the action waß the result of spite, on the part of i Moynihan. 1 Hi ß Worship said the " whole thing , was most unsatisfactory. The sworn ' staltemens did not give details of the J hours worked and neither did the* wages book which seemed to be made up by guesswork. There appeared to !be no iclaimj for overtime until there was a dispute between the parties. In cases of that kind it was essential that a detailed ,of the hours worked bo put!in. Ha did nod teel inclined to convict defendant for whom judgment would be i.gfcrgn. t . , - . * ,