Vincent Gedye

  General Notes:

Electoral Roll : -
1903 - 20 Gratton Street, Prahran, Vic., - traveller
1919 - 7 Munro Street, Middle Brighton, Vic., - traveller
1924, 1931, 1936 - 8 Dendy Street, North Brighton, Vic., - manufacturer.

Argus (Melbourne, Vic) Thursday 23 June 1921.
Factory Entered.
The factory of V. Gedye, on the corner of Bangs street and High street, Prahran, was broken into during Tuesday night, and women's and children's woollen clothing valued at £50 stolen. Entrance was gained
through the back door.

Argus (Melbourne, Vic Friday 21 November 1924
FACTORY BROKEN INTO.
Silk and Woollen Goods Stolen,
Silk and woollen goods valued at £100 were stolen from the factory of Mr. V. Gedye, manufacturer; in Grattan street, Prahran, on Wednesday night. The intruders forced the door of a lavatory at the rear of the premises, and, by breaking down a light wooden partition, entered the workroom. Apparently the goods were collected hastily, and carried through a back door to a lane, as several articles were found lying in the gutter when employees of the factory went to work, yesterday morning.
Plain-clothes Constable Arnold, of Prahran, is making inquiries.

Argus (Melbourne, Vic) Friday 24 May 1929.
WORK AND WAGE'S.
BREACH Of AWARD
Knitting Mills Owner Fined
Judge Lukin, in the Arbitration Court yesterday, imposed a penalty upon Vincent Gedye, of Grattan street, Prahran, knitting mill owner, who had been called upon to show cause why penalties should not be imposed upon him for certain breaches of an award of the Australian Textile Workers Union. The union was represented by Mr. P. J. Sheehan, and Mr. Gedye by Mr. L. Whithall, of the Victorian Chamber of Manufacturers.
Judge Lukin said that it had been complained that respondent had employed six persons as out-workers without a permit, had failed to keep the prescribed record book, had employed more than the number of out-workers under clause 24 ?? of the award, and had failed to have a copy of the award posted. He found, as a fact, that the employer was a respondent to the award, and ???essedly bound by it; that the employer was not employing any members of the complainant union or other persons individually bound by the award, and that if bound by the award, the employer was guilty of the acts and omissions charged against him. For the respondent it was contended that as the employer was not employing any member of the claimant union, he was "only a party in a limited sense." and that, therefore "in view of the law as it now stands, that as it has been defined by the High Court, it was questionable whether respondent was responsible.
Having been served with the log and the summons to appear, Judge Lukin continued it was respondent's duty at least to ascertain the provisions of the award that would, in the ordinary course of
events be made. He could not now be heard to say that he was ignorant of it. There were circumstances in respondent's ???? which justified a reduction of the penalty imposed to 6 pounds. That they would cover all the breaches complained of, and it would be paid to the secretary of the union to cover the cost of the proceedings.

  Noted events in his life were:

• Occupation: Manufacturer.

• connection.

• Birth Certificate: (18103).

• Death Certificate Number: (13703).

Vincent married Ethel Buck, daughter of Charles Henry Buck and Maria Hiscock, in 1897 in Victoria Australia. (Ethel Buck was born in 1873 in North Melbourne, Victoria Australia, died on 30 Dec 1928 in St Andrews Private Hospital, Middle Brighton, Victoria Australia and was buried on 31 Dec 1928 in Brighton Cemetery, Melbourne, Victoria Australia.)

  Noted events in their marriage were:

• Certificate: (6015).