EMPLOYMENT OF YOUTH.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 202, 27 July 1937, Page 8

EMPLOYMENT OF YOUTH.

A NOMINAL PENALTY. Claiming that two breaches had been committed, but seeking only a nominal penalty of £2 because it was considered that defendant had made an honest mistake, and been perfectly frank and open about the matter, Mr G. Brown, inspector for the Labour Department, took proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court to-day, before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., against L. J. Cookery, butcher, of Hokowhitu. Outlining the case, Mr Brown said the department claimed that, during the week ending April 4 last, defendant, himself classified as an adult worker, had employed two boys, though the Wellington Industrial Butchers’ Award prescribed that the proportion of boys and youths engaged must not be more than one to ev a ery three, or fraction of three, adults. When the matter was mentioned to him last year, defendant made application to the Butchers’ Assistants’ Union for exemption, but this was refused. , Subsequently defendant entered into a deed of partnership with a youth aged 19, who was drawing the proper wage, but was regarded by the department as a worker. It objected to the employment of this signatory’s younger brother, aged 14, at 30s a week for delivery work, on the ground that he was a second youth, in breach of the award. The second breach alleged against defendant was that by entering into the partnership agreement he had taken steps to defeat the operation of clause 111 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

Mr L. Laurenson, who appeared for defendant, stated that the latter’s partner had received more than the award wage, and was entitled to onethird of any net profits at the end of the year. Evidence was given by John Francis Quigan, butcher, aged 20, the signatory to the agreement, concerning the nature of his duties and his hours of work. He stated that he did not know his partner’s drawings. Evidence as to entries in the wages book was given by Mr Brown. The Magistrate remarked that he could not see that three or four youths could be employed as partners in the business. That would defeat the award, which aimed, in that section, at the employment of adults. A penalty of 10s was entered on the first cause of action and the second was withdrawn.