OFFICE WAGES

Dominion, Volume 36, Issue 309, 24 September 1943, Page 5

OFFICE WAGES

Attempt To Take Case f Io Privy Council

The Court of Appeal yesterday tleclined to give leave for the case, which it Je been thought -would, decide vhetlier higher-paid employees in ~ ,lllc. P S. , U p rl vy paid for overtime, to be taken to the l it .V Council. The case originated in a claim bv A. -f. Bannerman for payment o £i.">s/-.1/2 for overtime he worked emplovers, the Associated Motot Ist... Petrol C<>;, Kid. Speaking w support of flm company’s application for leave to appeal to the Privy touiicil from a decision bv the Court of Appeal against W Mr F. C. Spratt submitted that the Court should give leave because the case was of great general and pirb.be iW*rt; a neo. The Chief justice (Str Michael Alvers) Air. Justice Blair, Air. .Justice Johnston and Air. Justice I‘air were agreed that, the case was not one Wat should be taken to the higher court, but Mr. Justice Smith differed. The Chief Justice pointed out that Decnusc the subject matter of U' o : < ' lllll , n l ‘*s’ less than £5OO, leave, to appeal could not lie obtained as of right, and he said it had not been shown that the ease vas of great general or public importance. The applicant had not even filed an allidavit showing bow the case could b-1 brought within that description. -1-bLrc was nothing before the Court to show that other claims were pending, or that the law as laid down by the Court ot Appeal (in favour of Bannerman) had not been the actual practice since the passing of the Shops and Ofbces .Act, 1936, which created the existing position, nor anything to show a substantial body of persons desired the question to be decided. or that there was any general desire by merchants or employers for. the ease to be carried further.' Even if .it wore so, the application would require careful consideration because appellant had bad the benefit of three separate hearings in three separate courts, and there must be an end to litigation. Jhe circumstances would have to be exceptional for permission to take the case further to bo granted. It would be lb months or three years before the Privy Council’s decision could be obtained, and in the meantime the rights of employees might be prejudiced. Mr. Justice Blair said it would be easy for those interested in the question to take a much more typical ease than Bannerman’s. , . ... Pointing out that he aviis less familiar with the case than the other members of the Court, Air. Justice Smith said he did not require an affidavit to show him that many men and their employers must be committing offences, and that the question was of sufficient importance to go to the Privy Council. , , Air. Justice Johnston said Bannerman s status in the company’s office was the ground on which the case had 'been primarily argued in the Supreme Court, and were the case sent Home and an attempt made to expand it so as to give it general application it would be found there was insufficient evidence. ... Announcing the Court’s decision, the Chief Justice remarked that it was still competent for the company to apply to the Privy Council for special leave to appeal. .