House Rentals Charged By Sawmiller

Greymouth Evening Star, 20 September 1949, Page 7

House Rentals Charged By Sawmiller

Judgment for the defendant in both cases was awarded by his Honor. Mr Justice Tyndall, in actions brought by, the inspector of awards against H. Baigent and Sons, Limited, sawmillers, Nelson, for alleged breaches of the Westland Timber Workers’ Award. The claims were heard in the Arbitration Court at .Greymouth before his Honor last August. The actions related to house rents charged to certain employees for occupancy of dwellings at Inangahua Junction. It was claimed by the Inspector of Awards (who claimed a £lO .penalty from the defendant), that the defendant, being bound by the award, had failed last April to accept in full settlement of the weekly rent in respect of premises occupied by a worker, R. M. Win, of the award payment of a sum at the rate of £3 per calendar month. His Honor, in his judgment, said that it was claimed by the plaintiff that in charging the worker rent at the rate of 17s 6d per week, the employer had not accepted the sum of £3 per calendar month in full settlement of the weekly rate. It was stated under paragraph B of clause 25 of the award that £3 a month was the charge for premises for married men, the premises having hot and cold water, stove, washhouse, and other facilities. However, the dwelling occupied by Win, said his Honor, contained three bedrooms and the lease entered into by the company and the worker provided for a weekly rental of 17s 6d.

This amount was the maximum rental allowable under section 23 (paragraph 2) of the Finance Act. “It appears to us that the Finance Act is-intended to be regarded as the paramount document, and that clause 25 of the Award is to be read as wholly subordinate to the statute,” said his Honor in his judgment. “We consider therefore that the dwelling in question does not fall within the scope of clause 25, paragraph B of the Award, and consequently judgment must be for the defendant.”

Defendant, he said, had pointed out that another paragraph in the Award clearly intended to remove houses constructed and let under the Finance Act from the scope of clause 25 of the award.

“In this case the dwelling meets with the requirements of the clause 25 in the award,” said his Honor in referring to the second claim, which related to a dwelling occupied at Inangahua Junction by Douglas Butler. Defendant’s submission was that the class of house erected by the company was much higher than, contemplated under the award, he said. “In our opinion a breach of the award has been established, but the circumstances do not call for the imposition of a penalty,” stated his Honor.