MILITARY REGULATIONS.

Taranaki Daily News, 18 December 1918, Page 6

MILITARY REGULATIONS.

ALLEGED BREACHES AT j WAITARA, EMPLOYERS AXD EMPLOYEE FINE©. Cases were heard in the Magistrate's tonrt at Xew Plymouth yesterday, before Mr A. Crooke, S.M., in which Messrs Borthwick, Ltd., of Waitara, and Robert Walter Fuller, butcher, employed by the aforesaid company, were charged with failing to notify the' Camp Commandant that Fuller had ceased to be employed in an essential industry, and Puller was also charged with failing to notify the change of his place of abode. . " Sub-Inspector Hutton appeared for the police and Mr A. H. Johnstone represented defendants in both cases. Sub-Inspector Hutton, in outlining the case said accused was a butcher employed by Borthwick and Sons at their Waitara freezing works. Special leave had been obtained for him by iiis employers from time to time, on account of his being an essential worker. The freezing works had closed down for the season on August 1C last and had not opened up again until December 15 During that time defendant had been to TJrenui, where he had worked for Mr Dunbar for varying periods. He had also been to Eltham on two occasions, and had stayed more than seven days. 7vo notice had been given to the Defence authorities of defendant ceasing to be employed in an essential industry, as required by the terms of his exemption, nor had defendant given any notice of the change of his abode. The oases against Fuller were heard flrst and pleas of not guilty were entered. Evidence was given by Constable Wroblenski, that he interviewed defendant at Eltham on December 4th. He made a statement in which he said he had left the works at Waitara at the end of the season, and would not return to work there until notified by Borthwick that he was again wanted. He considered he was still in their employ. He Tcceived no remuneration from Mr Dunbar while working for hiin. Chas. Dunbar, TJrenui, storekeeper, deposed that defendant had worked with his fcrother off and on, who was employed by witness, but he (witness) had nothing to do with any arrangements that might have been made, and he paid defendant no remuneration. Witness did not know how long defendant was at the store. He knew nothing about the circumstances. Captain Hawkins, Assistant Director of Personal Services, said he knew defendant 8B being engaged in itn essential occupation. He had been exempted from camp on account of being engaged in an essential indnstrr. Wit-1 ness had seen no communication Irom defendant since August 16 last. Mr Johnstone said the facts wore substantially correct. The freezing industry was an essential occupation during the war period. In 1916 there wan a great shortage of butchers, and no men were coming from Australia, as they objected to come under the Conscription Act The defendant, who was a butcher employed by the company at Waitara had' voluntarily enlisted in

1916, and went into earn? with the 22nd ■Reinforcements in November of that year. While in camp his training consisted in working in the butcher's shop, and at the end of his training he did not fcnow left from right turn. In January, 1917. on the application of Messrs Borthwien to a, 'Military Service Board, defendant was granted leave from camp to engage in an essential occupation, till July 31. 1917. He returned to camp and on November 1 he was ajrain given leave till January, 191S, and in January received farther leave till August, and in August was given indefinite leave, without pay The works closed down 071 August lfith, 1918 and opened asain on December 15. The time of opening depended on the supply of stock, which this esasoii, owing to ike severe and iong winter, had not come forward 30 early us usual Accused was i piecework butcher, and held himself in readiness to start work whenever called upon. fie was not discharged, ar.d ne .vr changed ins employment in a/17 sense. Neither had lie changed his place of abode. He jived with Ins brother-in-law in Waiiara, where he had a room, in which he kept ! his persona! effects He had not lived anywhere else than at Waitaro nil the time iie had been working for Borth>viel;s, which was several years. Consequently he had not notified any change ox abode. The facts were that lie- went to see his people at Urenui, and while there worked with his brother for Mr Dunbar He was only filling ir, time. He received no remuneration, and was merely waiting a ou.ll from the freezing works to start work. As he considered himself in Borthwick'a employ he did not consider he had ceased to be employed in an essential occupation. It could not therefore he claimed that defendant had either ceased to be employed in an essential occupation, or that he lad changed his place of abode. John Blair, v/ort.s majager at the Waitara freezing works, said defendant had been employed aj a beef butcher by the company for several years. The tforka wei-3 open continuously from August 1914 to August 1916, then from Aovenibe?" 1918 to August 1917, and 'fi-om September 1917 to August 1918. '&Mt3pn depended -upon the way sicieti'''cattle forward. Sometimes they /ditf' noi%et laach' iiotice from buyers, operating all over the dis- ' tffict, ,;i afe[i in the Widlcato. The butchers kept' in touch with the firm, so as , to lie fou4y as as work waa nvailaiile. ':'Fiilfcr had been employed as a tyj?f biitche:' all the while 'witness had ;Been in charge of the works. He was a piece,W*er ar.d 'his daily lior.rs varied considerably. He had oeen given leave from camfi on account of being an essential worker. When not working for the companv the men were free to do as they liked. He had given no notice to the' Defence Department on behalf of defendant. Cross-examined by Sub-Inspector Hutton, witness said he had not notified the department of any of their butchers ceasing to be employed. There had been no work done between August lfi and December 15. The butchers kept in touch with the company—the company did not keen in touch with the men. Durine the hearing of the various applications for leave for defendant the question of notice to the department was never once raised. It. was impossible to tell how long the works would be closed down for anv season. M»ev alwavs recorded the butchers as i'i their employ, although they might do 110 work for several months. Defendant cave evidence much on the lines of the statement made hv his eoiinlel He never actuallv left «i«trict during the time the work* were -d*td 4ow»- wast to Elthun to

sec friends but the works foreman, and also his '.brother-in-law. always knew where to find him! He went' to Ure* nui for the purpose of seeing his relatives, and while there helped his brother, who worked for Mr Dunbar, but he got nothing for it. The second lime he went to Eltham was at the peace celebrations, anil then the influenza broke out and he stayed to give some assistance. He did not think he was required to give any notice to the Defence 'Department. To Sub-liispeetor Hutton: He never-re-ported leaving his employment because lie considered himself liable to be called to work any day, even though he had done no work for the company between August 1G and December. While working for hi 3 brother at Dunbar's he was not absent from Waitara for more thau a week at a timeThe Magistrate said he considered the matter -very unimportant. The charge of failing to notify the change of plaee of abode was dismissed, and it was held a technical breach of the regulations had been committed in the ease of failing to notify cessation -of employment in an essential occupation, and a fine of 10/was inflicted. The charga asrainst Borthwick and Sons for failing to give notice'that Puller had ceased to be employed by them was then called, and in view of the decision in the previous case Mr Johnstone admitted the offence. Sub-Inspector Hutton stated the company -was a powerful one. The Defence Department complained of difficulty in getting the military regulations observed, and that these companies seemed inclined to take matters into their own hands, . He asked for a substantial penalty. Th» Magistrate entered a conviction and imposed a fine of 10/ . The costs in the two cases, amounting to £5 8s 2, were divided between the two defendants.