BAKERS OF BREAD.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVI, Issue 147, 22 June 1915, Page 6

BAKERS OF BREAD.

CONTRACTORS OK SERVANTS I APPEAL CASE FROM WIIANGAREE. In the Court of Arbitration to-day coiksiderntion was given to an appeal from a derision cf Mr. E. Page. S.M., at Whangarei. .Mr. Justice Stringer presided, and with him were Messrs. E. F. Duthie and J. A. MeCullougl), arbitrators for the men nnd employers, respectively. The appellant was Walter Newton, Inspector of Awards, and the respondent was Henry Green Wilkinson, of Waangarei. In the original action the inspector claimed two sums of £10 as penalties'for alleged breaches of the Northern District Bakers and Pastrycooks' award, dated October 2.5, 1012, on the ground that Wilkinson combined with William Cliarles , Howell Drillill and Arnold Yates, at Karao, between May 25 and August 3, 1914, to defeat the provision of the award by entering into an arrangement in connectir.n with the manufacture of bread and small goods, which resulted in the payment to Driflill of lrss wages than those provided by clause! 2 of the award. I It was contended thet .\ contract en- ' tered into with Drißill and Yates for tne letting of the bakehouse had not been carried out, and that the contractors did not have sok control, because a baker named Graham was employed and paid wages by Wilkinson. It was argued th-it the contract was not bona fide. J In arguing the case before the magisI trate, counsel for defendant contended : that Criffill and Yates were independent contractors, and that they were not workers within the meaning of the Act. Counsel argued that section 110 of the j Act did not relate to such a case, but was i designed to cover some form of legal proj ceeciings taken with the intention of de- ] feat ing any of the provisions of an award. The magistrate's finding was that the relationship existing between the parties J was that of employer and contractors, and not master and servants. Further, they were contractors for the baking of a definite quantity of material. The appeal was based on the contention that the magistrate's finding was wrong lin law. The Hon. J. A. Tole K.C., ap- : peared for the appellant, and Mr. A. E. Skelton for the respondent. After hearing argument the Court reserved its decision, and the sitting wad, adjourned to Wellington.