MORE THAN BASIC RATE PAID

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 68, Issue 139, 24 March 1948, Page 6

MORE THAN BASIC RATE PAID

Builder Convicted on Five Charges

DEPARTMENT CENSURED BY COUNSEL

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, March 23

Convictions were entered against John Thomas Hogan, builder and contractor, by Mr J. H. Thompson, S.M., on five charges laid under the Stabilisation Regulations of paying carpenters more than the basic rate without the approval of the Wages Commissioner in a reserved decision given to-day.

After hearing submissions by counsel for defendant (Mr S. G. Stephenson), the Magistrate convicted and fined Hogan £2O on one charge and convicted and discharged him on the other four.

The Magistrate said he could find nothing in the regulations to support Mr Stephenson’s contention that because defendant was on December 15, 1942, paying Id or Gd more than the award rate he was now entitled to pay up to a similar amount more than the present rate of 3s 7d. In his opinion, to pay thei men more than the rate of 3s 7d without the approval of the Wages Commissioner was clearly an offence, as the extra lid an hour was irrecoverable. Defendant should therefore he convicted. “It is well known that there has been a shortage of labour of recent years,” said the Magistrate, “and it is obvious that an employer who is prepared to pay higher rates than those legally payable is thus enabled to ‘pirate’ workmen from his competitors and so gain an unfair advantage.

Liability of Employee

“The legal liability of an employee who accepts higher Avages is precisely similar to that of his employer who makes payment, and he knoAvs full well that Avhile the regulations remain in force he is not entitled to receive the excess payment. 11, as in the present case, Avorkmen have combined to compel an employer to pay an extra lid an hour by hint of a go-sIOAV policy which has caused him such heavy loss that he feels he is unable to continue the struggle against the increase, then such Avorkmen appear to be every bit as culpable as the employer. If employers find their men are endeavouring to compel them to break the Ihav their remedy lies not in complying with the demands made on them, but in taking steps either to have the IaAV altered or to have the regulation strictly and Impartially applied to all persons guilty of offence against their provisions,” the Magistrate said. Mr Stephenson’s Opinion That employee and employer Avere equally guilty Avas submitted by Mr Stephenson. . “Once it is alleged that a sum of money defined-as ‘irrecoverable’ under the regulations has been paid, then It follows that both the person who pays and the person receives are liable to prosecution, be said. “And again it follows automatically that once it is established that a sum defined as ‘ irrecoverable has in fact been paid, then both parties are equally guilty.” Mr Stephenson censured the Department for failing to prosecute both parties, and asked the court to impose either no penalty at all or a nominal penalty in the present cast'.