FACTORIES ACT BREACH

Taranaki Central Press, Volume IV, Issue 449, 3 June 1937, Page 4

FACTORIES ACT BREACH

NIGHTWATCHMAN’S DUTIES Dairy Company Fined For employing a worker, Godfrey Bunning, In a dairy factory on more than six days In (any one week, the Midhirst Cooperative Dairy Factory Company, Limited, was' fined £1 (costs £1 2s) in the Stratford Magistrate’s Court this morning. In giving his decision, thg Magistrate, Mr W. H. Woodward, said the facets were not in dispute. Bunning was engaged by the defendant company as a nightwatchman in Its dairy factory four years ago. He drew the wages and at first performed only the duties of a nightwatchman. At Ms request he was later given other jobs.' to help him to pass the time and as a result his routine at the factory was altered. He came on duty at 9.30 p.m. and went round the Jifeßiises then and about every hour up to 1.30 a.m. He then bagged and wheeled out cheese, filled the drums in. the drying plant with casein ready for the workers and got up steam for cooking the casein. Then he set the agitator going to break the curd in the vats and turned the stetaim into the vats. He watched the coolting process until the casein worker came to take over the cooking at 2 a.m., af. ter which Banning stoked the boiler until 5 a m., when his work finished. That routine was followed every night in the week. Definition of “Worker." There was no definition of worker in the Act, continued Mr WOv/dward. Mr Graham, secretary for the company, had submitted that the night, watchman of a factory was nut a worker employed He point, ed out that section 4 (4) in providing for holidays, for dairy factory workers to be taken after the close of the reason suggested that the only persons whom the legislature regarded as such workers were those who were employed in the manufacture of dairy produce and who 'therefore could not have their holidays during the milking season. Bunning, how-

ever, was more than a nightwatchman. An appreciable part of hit time was occupied in getting up steam and making preparation for the work of the factory, activities which in section 3 (4) were contemplated ias part of the work of a factory worker. “In my opmion he is for that: reason a worker employed in a dairy factory, and as He” has been so employed on more than tix days per wtok, the defendant company must be convicted,” concluded Mr Wood* ward. At the hearing Mr Harold Graham (secretary) appeared on behalf of the company, and Mr D. T. C. Brayshaw, of New Plymouth, Inspector of Factories, prosecuted.