BREACHES OF AWARDS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXX, Issue 3427, 19 January 1912, Page 2

BREACHES OF AWARDS.

PENALTIES INFLICTED

The Inspector of Awards (Air. AA’. H. VYestbrooke) proceeded against Henry Martin, cordial manufacturer, at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday for the sum of £lO for a breach of the Drivers’ Award in that he employed A\ r . G. Alariiett as a driver and failed to provide a time book. Defendant pleaded guilty, but explained that as his men did not belong to the Union he did not think it affected them. The- Magistrate imposed a fine of £2 without costs.

The Inspector also claimed £3 from Yv. Morxlie for a breach of the hotel employees award by leaving the employ of F Harris without- giving the prescribed notice as required..... The defendant, who had gone to Christchurch, did not and judgment was given for the amount claimed. v . The Inspector of Awards claimed £3 from F. Harris for a breach of the hotel employees’ award. The defendant, it appears, had not paid the rate of wages to the chief cook as required by the agreementAir. F. AA 7 . Nolan, who appeared for the defendant, said that he would plead guilty. The agreement was spoken of as an award, but it was not made by the Arbitration Court. It purported to bind all hotelkeepers in the Counties of C-ook. AYaikohu, and AVaiapu, but really it was only binding on these who signed it. The defendant had two men in his kitchen, with The head. cook, and also a general hand. The chief cook was employed by Mr.. Harris during July and August. In September the Court was asked to decide whether he was entitled h lx? paid the rates for having two or three assistants. The Court decided the general hand was a kitchen hand, and therefore the chief cook was entitled to be paid the rate for throe assistants. The breach had only been a. technical one, and he asked that in the circumstances only a nominal- penalty should be inflicted.

The Inspector said the agreement was a- registered one. and came into force in July last. The chief cook, asked the defendant- fo-r another £1 a week as he considered he was entitled to it for having three assistants. The defendant then decided he would run the kitchen with two assistants, the second cook to have some assistance from a general hand- . " . The Alagistrafe entered a- conviction, and fined defendant £2.