CONTRACTORS LOSE

Greymouth Evening Star, 11 March 1932, Page 12

CONTRACTORS LOSE

TEN PER CENT. “CUT” SEQUEL. WAIHI, March 8Reserved decision in connection with the claim which was heard last month as made by Edward Dye and other mining contractors against the Waihi Company for alleged breach of contract in withholding from plaintiffs’ contract moneys amounting to £26/4/2, was delivered in the Warden’s Court this morning by Mr F. W. Platts, S.M. The action was a sequel to the 10 per cent cut order made by the Arbitration Court. Plaintiffs claimed that the company had acted wrongly in making a deduction, in that the Arbitration Court had no jurisdiction oyer independent contractors- The dispute concerned the period between June 27 and September 19The defendant company submitted that in order to-avoid suspicion of unfairness the men had been paid to June 27, and from that date contractors had worked with full knowledge of the reduced price. Giving his decision, the warden reviewed the correspondence between reviewed the correspondence between the parties and the evidence given by Edward Dye- Mr Platts said that the evidence of this witness showed that on June II plaintiffs accepted a new contract from the defendant company and that on July 9 they undertook still more new work at a different price. His evidence also showed that he was under the impression that when the defendant made the deduction of 10 per cent from contractors’ earnings it was applying to them the 10 per cent wages cut authorised by the Arbitration Court. “It is under this misapprehension on the part of union officials and of plaintiffs that this action has been brought,” said the warden. It is admitted that contractors with the de-

fendant company accepted the work in contracts at the prices indicated by the employer. If they object to either the work or the price .their remedy is to decline the contract. In the denfant company’s notice of June 5, that all contract parties were for the future to be reduced 10 per cent., there is no statement expressed or implied that this reduction was made in pursuance of any order of the Arbitration Court. It was a mistake of the union officials and of the plaintiffs to think that it was- Plaintiffs could have refused to enter into the contracts subject to this deduction. They continued work, however, and the deduction was made. They have not established right to recover the amounts sued for.” Judgment was given for the defendant company, with the usual costs.