CHIEF JUSTICE DIFFERS

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22249, 13 November 1937, Page 23

CHIEF JUSTICE DIFFERS

DECISION OF COURT OF APPEAL APPLICATION OF INDUSTRIAL AWARD U'KESS ASSOCIAIOK TIIJSGBAM.) WELLINGTON, November 12. Judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered in the case of Frederick Wilson, Inspector of Factories (New Plymouth) versus the Cardiff Co-opera-tive Dairy Comp ; v, Ltd. Questions of law in this case, stated for the opinion of the Court of Appeal by the Court of Arbitration, involved consideration of Section 15 (3) of the Finance Act, 1936. Bv this section wages under awards which are in substitution or replacement of other awards,or industrial agreements in force on May 29, 1931 (when a general order was made reducing the rate of pay under all awards) are to be increased to the original rate. Matters for determination were: (1) Whether the Taranaki Creamery and Cheese and Butter Factory employees' industrial agreement of September, 1934, which applied to the respondent company, was in substitution or replacement of an award of 1930; and (2) if so, whether a certain employee of the respondent company was by virtue of the above section entitled to certain holiday pay as provided in the award of 1930. In his judgment the Chief Justice said he differed from other members of the Court in his answer to the first question, which he answered in the negative. In his opinion the natural meaning of the words "in substitution or replacement" was substitution or replacement of something that previously existed and on examination of all the relevant facts and circumstances of the present case the industrial agreement of 1934 did not take the place of the 1930 award. On the second question 'he came to the same conclusion as other members of the Court, that this should be answered "no." , _ A . In separate judgments Mr Justice Smith and Mr Justice Fair held that the first question should be answered "yes," as the industrial agreement of 1934, in their interpretation of the statutory provision, was in substitution or replacement of the 1930 award. The judgment of the Court accordingly is that the first question is to be answered in the affirmative and the second question in the negative.