UNKNOWN

Taihape Daily Times, Volume 7, Issue 204, 6 May 1915, Page 3

UNKNOWN

A WARNING TO EMPLC RS. Yesterday JaoriJl:..;, lar. W. A Hasel-.'?-.; \•"•■•. "• ;<r•:• r 1 "lerih"* fa • infor- "•■' tor-H for brcjj.oiics of the SI.-.-ps and of-':.-!-- Avt pv] the !'-"-i-(]« rc-.pccti";; t'.'.l- v/y.i.os under tuo . Y.wl v.strial iTi'l ' !■:.•;•• c;.:>.: .Act." Convictions wore re-eo-ded A eich mid Ms Worship r;--.o ,v:-. v'rVtg that future bread, ea ■would not be dealt with as leniently tutlie cases just heard. The main por.il of interest to employers is that it is ••mpulsory to keep the wages and overtime book up to date and that the number of hours worked eaeh day must be recorded in the wages book. Employers should also note, in respect to female employees, that it is necessary to obtain from the local Inspector of Factories a permit before they can be engaged on overtime. , The first case taken was against ,T. De Luen, tailor, who was charged with failing to properly keep a wages and overtime book.

Inspector Gohns, of thi Labour Department, prosecuted, and defendant, through counsel, pleaded not guilty. In evidence, Inspector Gohns stated that he visited the defendant's shop on 19th March and found that the number of hours worked was not inserted in the wages book, and in respect to one of the tailoresses and one tailor there was no entry since December 14th 1914.

Cross-examined, witness said th.nt the wages book respecting the other seven employees was not kept according to the regulations, i.e., the hours worked were not inserted. He had noticed that up to a year or two ago Mr. De

Lucn had kept his book in a different manner to that now employed. It was necessary, even where employees were paid on piecework, to keep a daily record of the hours worked.

Defendant stated that he had been in business 15 or 16 years and for the last ten years had kept a wages and overtime book. He produced some old wages books, in which the hours worked each day had been inserted. This system was altered between ihree ov four years ago on the advice of the thou inspector, who said it was not necessary to insert the hours worked each day. That was why he altered the system of keeping the wages book, lie had not made entries in the book; for the last three years that- work was entrusted to one of his employees. That employee had been absent from work for some time and the entries were not Tip to date when the Inspetor called. The book had sinee been entered up and tlif> employees affected had signed for their'wages. Witness fo-.md it impracticable to keep a daily record of hours of those engaged era piecework. Mr. Giohns stated that the Inspector mentioned by defendant had been cut of the service since 1908. His Worship decided to suspend judgment till another ca.se against defendant had been heard. The same defendant was then charged wth a breach of the Tailoresses' Award in that" he employed two female

aijnyo" i '■■' ■ ; ' ■here one only v.v.s allowed. Defendant entered a pica ot not ga'lty. InuucotoJ Cohils siare;l that .';: \isitng liefeiula-nt 's premises he f-.uud that r-w female apprentices were employed The -j'.\;nd allowed one apprentice l> each fear. '••: j-roportion of f i lr ;journ«■•r:,(;.:. Ao ; cc:\ was cut? tied '■■■■ one appresitice '--ly and the name of the i ; ;,.i"'- ; ;.'l'>e. ■'■ '>■•■ was nor on! ; :, vd in the w.•„;;'.-.:? book. ;'.o til-:- eniy means witness iiac; of v ■■-.■ •■ ■■. "cr: :: v the transgression ■.'.-as L>y >■<>■.'■: -'..Kg fchu eir:ployo?.-j, which •'.'>■ i..■■£-*.•:;:■ mined, witness said that he presumed that a copy <f the Award, April, 1012, had been posted to defendant. Possibly a prior inspector had not complained to defendant about employng the extra apprentice. Witness had been in this district nine months and had not previously examined De Luen's books or staff. Defendant stated that he understood he was entitled to two apprentices as he was employing more than four operatives. It was here pointed out to defendant that the award which referred to four operatives was the Tailoresses' Award and the male employees could not be included to make up his necessary epiota to allow o.t two apprentices.

Defendant then state I that be was not aware of the provisions of the award; he also understood that he was entitled to an apprentice to each three, or proportion of three, journeywomen, of whom he employed four. Inspector Gohns pointed out that a penalty of £SO could be made in the first case and £IOO in the second.

His Worship stated that he intended to treat the case leniently as it was the first in Taihnpe for at least two years." Businessmen were not always aware of the labour laws hut this case should serve as a warning that the provisions of awards should be observed. A nominal penalty of £1 and 7/- costs was made on the first charge and £l, without costs, on the second charge. S. S. Timbs was then charged with failing to properly keep a wages and overtime book.

Through Mr. Emerson, who appeared for Mr. Timbs, who was unable to attend through illness, a plea of no* guilty Avas entered. (Inspector Gohns stated that defendant's wages and overtime book was not properly kept in that the hours worked each day were not entered. Defendant admitted to witness that he was employing his hands ten hours r day instead of nine hours. Witness wrote defendant in November last, warning him that the hours worked each day must be entered in the wages book, and a specimen page of a wages book was enclosed.

Cross-examined, witness stated In: did not copy his letter of lasNovember. The award rate was Zii 15/-, and defendant paid £3 5/- per week. After witness' visit the booh produced showed that the hours worked were inserted and they were four hours over the award rate. Defendant then entered the men's wages as £" 15/- and allowed 10/- for the four hours overtime. That was against the la-rr.

His Worship stated that he could not treat this case the same as those against De Luen, as Timbs had ample notice of what was required of him. Defendant had persisted in breaking the law in a wilfully ignorant way. A fine of £3 was imposed. YBSTERDAY'S PROCEEDINGS. (Before Mr. W. R. Hasekleu, S.M ) Henry Dunbar and Lionel Walton were charged with negligently riding ;. | horse ia the streets of Tahape. The incident'occurred one evening !ir?fc ■:-. c■".!•: and the young mon both pleaded g'.'iby. En putting the case before the C'ojirk Sergeant Harvey briefly described ."A '■ took place. The young men were hot-, on tlie same horse and whoa the Auckland express train came in they ••■ e.-. in the vicinity of the platform. The chief danger of the offence was that, ■they rode through the crowd as the people were leaving the station; the young fellows continued their career further down the town and at one time nearly collided with a pedestrian. The defendants certainly did. not ride fast when in the crowd. His Worship said that seeing that no very serious consequences were the result of the escapade, he would fine each offender 10/- with costs, 7/-. DEFENDED CASE. A claim of £2 9/- for payment for board was lodged by J. T. Logan, of Moawhango, against Alex. Reid, of Moawhango. Plaintiff stated that the account was incurred hy Reid's employees and Reid authorised the account. Defendant disputed liability. After consideration of the evidence, his Worship allowed the claim, with costs, £1 12/-. UNDEFENDED CASK Judgment was given far L. Daws against John Quillinan, balance due on sewing machine, £3 10/-, costs 5/-.