FARM WORKER’S CLAIM.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 20 February 1925, Page 4

FARM WORKER’S CLAIM.

NOT UPHELD BY COURT. A RESERVED DECISION. Judgment in the case in which a worker, Edward Bettridge, proceeded against his employer, Margaret Wileockis, for an alleged breach of the Wages Protection and Contractors Liens Act, 1908, whs given by Mr. J. S. Barton, S.AI.. at the Magistrate s Court, Hawera, yesterday. The judgment stated : The plaintiff s case is that his wages.were not wholly paid in money, but partly in money and partly by a contract that the balance of wages should be deducted and acopeted 'by the employer in. discharge of a liability for damage to property and for consumption of electric current. The informant further cites and relies on section .‘lO of the Act, which provides that: “In, any proceedings u- suit against any employer . . . . for the hreaoh of any provision of this part of the Act . . the fact that the worker consented thereto shall not avail in any way as an answer or defence.’’

The defendant, for her relies on the provisions, of section 47 of the Act, particularly the provisions of sub-sections (d) and (h) of that section. Sub-section (d) is as follows: “This part of this Act shall not extend or apply . , . where such employer allows such worker the use of a. tenement as. part of the wages or in addition to his, wages.” I dismiss this sub-section from further consideration by holding that it ha.s no application to the facts of this case ; tlie question of a deduction for rent is not in issue. Sub-section (h) of section, 47 is a®, follows: “This part of this Act shajl not extend or apply in. the following cases: To seamen, or to persons employed in agricultural or pastoral pursuits.” This sub-section is: immediatelv followed 'by the proviso: “Provided that no deduction or stoppage shall exceed the real and time value of any fuel, tools, implements, hay, corn, provender, victuals, drink or materials.”

Two questions are before the court on the consideration of this- . subsection and proviso. The first is: “Is the informant, the worker in this case, a ‘person, employed in agricultural and pastoral pursuits?’ ’’ and the second is “What is the precise effect of sub-section (h), followed as it is. by the proviso quoted above?’'] I answer the first question in the affirmative, holding without doubt that a farm, labourer employed to do dairying work on a dairy farm is employed in agricultural and pastoral pursuits. T answer the second question by the finding that sub-section (h) removes all seamen and all pastoral and agricultural labourers from the class of persons protected by part 2 of this Act, and leaves the provisions of this part inapplicable to the incidents and terms of their employment. It is to be noted, that in section 47 the words, “this nart of this Act shall not extend or apply in the following cases” are followed by 8 clauses numbered alphabetically, (a) to (h) inclusive. The first seven clauses, (a) to (g) inclusive, describe transactions of a nature that result in stoppage of, or deductions from, wages in consideration of supplies of medicine®, tools, equipment, provender for horses, dwelling-houses, victuals and insurance and friendly society premiums by employer lor benefit of employee. The eighth clause in (h) describes not transactions but industries, and it cut® out without qualification two whole, industries which, have in common the feature that workers in them, are, whilst working, u’sually housed and fed by the employer. The proviso follows after tlie complete setting out of the eight clauses, and obviously qualifies those only which, exempt transactions >n the nature of deductions or stoppages on account of the things which are, described in the clauses and the proviso. The proviso, therefore, in my opinion, has no bearing or effect on clause (h) of the section. It is a, disabling proviso which limits the right, to stop or deduct wages granted by clauses (a) to fg), and it cannot be used to add by inference to clause (h) a protection to pastoral workers and seamen in respect of deductions other than those detailed in the proviso. s f Tiold therefore that this part of the Wages Protection and Contractors Liemst Act does not apply to the transactions between the informant and the defendant, and consequently no offence is disclosed. The information is therefore dismissed. Air. P. O’Bea conducted the case for the informant and Air. Rrodie for the defendant.