The Press. MONDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1895. THE PAYMENT OF WAGES

Press, Volume LII, Issue 9290, 16 December 1895, Page 4

The Press. MONDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1895. THE PAYMENT OF WAGES

A case reported in our columns on Saturday as having been heard before Mr. Bishop, S.M., at Darfield, seems to us to deserve a little further attention, as involving a point of law of some importance to employers. From the statement of the case as published, it appears that a lad of sixteen, named George Haddrell, went as a cadet to Messrs. Wright Bros., farmers, of Annat, to learn farming. The first year he received no payment, but the second year it was agreed that he was to have £5 at the end of the year. The sum of £2 had been advanced to him during the twelve months, when his relations with his employers came to a sudden termination. He applied for a week's holiday to attend the races and show,*- but Messrs. Wright, as the farm work was very much behind, and he had already been to the Exhibition, would only allow him from Thursday morning till Monday morning. Thereupon the cadet left work and brought an action against his employers for £3, balance of his pay for the twelve months. Judgment was given for the defendants with costs, and one would have thought that there would have been an end of the matter. Not so, however. The young cadet had as a relative And "next

friend " the local policeman of the district, Constable Walter H. Haddrkll, •who appears, in the absence of much serious crime in his district, to be able to devote a good deal of leisure time to the study of the Statute law of New Zealand of a quasi-oivil character. It seems to have occurred to this astute policeman that although Master Haddrkll had been adjudged to have no claim against his late masters, , there -was still a chance of causing ! them some annoyance uuder one of the Labour Acts passed by the present Government. Accordingly, divesting himself for the moment of his official status, Constable Haddrell appeared before the Court as a privato individual in support of an information which he had laid against Mr. George Wright, the elder member of the firm, for failing to pay Master Georgh Haddrell his wages weekly. For the defence it was urged that the £5 pocket money to be paid at the end of the year did not come within the definition of wages. Mr. Bishop held, however, that the term wages as defined by the Act was very comprehensive, and that a breach of the law had been committed in the present instance. To emphasise his remark that the case ought never to have been brought into Court, however, he inflicted a fine of ls only, without costs. Whether the holiday-loving young cadet and his •• next friend" the litigious policeman are satisfied with this Cadmean victory, we are not prepared to say. No doubt they did succeed in inflicting a certain amount of annoyance on the Messrs. Wright in spite of the merely nominal nature of the fine, and they may perhaps think | the game worth the candle, even ! though they themselves are left out of pocket by the transaction. If the Act is to be used in this way, however, it is as well that employers should understand its provisions. The information, we take it, was laid under Section 8 of the Workmen's Wages Act of 1893 ; it runs as follows :— "In the absence of an agreement in writiug to tho contrary, the entire amount of wages earned by or payable to any workman engaged or employed in manual labour shall be paid to such workman at intervals of not more than one week." The definitions of " wages" and " workmen " are both very sweeping. "•Wages' includes any money or thing had or contracted tr> be paid, delivered or given as a recompense, reward, remuneration, or consideration for any service, work or labour, rendered or done, or to be rendered or done, whether within a certain time or to a certain amount, or for a time and an amount uncertain, and whether payable daily, weekly, or monthly." The definition of workman is equally embracing in its scope. It runs as follows; — " ' Workman* means any person, male or female, and whether under or above the age of twenty-one years in' auy manuer engaged or employed on manual labour or in work of any kind, and whether his or her renumeration is to be according to time or by piece work or at a fixed pries or otherwise howsoever;" The effect of these provisions would seem to be that an' "employer must pay any persons engaged in manual labour in his employ their wages weekly unless he has a-written agreement with them to the contrary. In many instances —as on some stations for example—it is practically impossible, or at any rate highly inconvenient, to,pay. the hands every week. In such cases the only safe course is for the employer to enter into a written agreement with his employees as to the way in which they are to be paid. Otherwise he may find himself proceeded against under the Act we have quoted, I the maximum penalty being 5.50, or three months' in default. Any hand whom he discharged might use the Act as a means of annoying him, or an officious policeman with spare time for studying labour legislation might make him the target of his legal shafts. We do not think the Act was ever intended to be abused in this way, and therefore we consider it is only right that employers should know the position.