SHARE-MILKING DISPUTE.

Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 16 November 1925, Page 5

SHARE-MILKING DISPUTE.

TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT

PROCEEDINGS IN COURT

A sharemilking case in which a sharemilker was discharged because he did not employ a married couple on the farm occupied the greater part of the sitting of the Patea Court on Friday, before Mr. J. S. Barton. S.M. Mien rod Kalin (the sharemilker) admitted liability to his employer, R. S. Scown, to the extent of £79 5s ’ sd, but counter-claimed the sum of £B3 11s Sd. . Mr. F. C. Spratt appeared for Kalin, and Mr. Rutherford for Scown. In outlining his case, Mr. Spratt said that defendant, in partnership with a man named Chamberlain, had been share-milking for two years for the plaintiff. The partners had an agreement in writing for the first year, but not for the second year. About December of the second year it became known that the partnership was to dissolve at the end of the season. Plaintiff then offered Kalin the job, which was accepted. The conditions were to be similar to those under which the partnership worked. The agreement was oral. The plaintiff in the counter-claim, Meinrod Kalin, in evidence stated that during the haymaking previous to Chamberlain’s departure three hands and a housekeeper were employed. Scown had once suggested getting" rid of the housekeeper and employing a married couple, but nothing was said about the number of hands that should be employed. On the returns from 80 cows he could not have afforded to engage a married couple without discharging his best man. With the labour he was employing 120 cows could have been milked. Mrs. Scown told witness in April that her husband would like to see a married couple on the place, and he replied that he would do his best. He later spoke to his employer' about the matter, and said he did not wish to turn the housekeeper “on to the road,” and would like to see her get another place- first. Under the impression that his position was secure he engaged a man to start on July 1, and also made enquiries regarding a married couple, but was not successful. On August 3 witness went to Scown to fix up for the season and was asked if a, married couple had been engaged. On receiving a negative answer Scown said he would only put on between 70 and 80 cows. Witness then told Scown it was not a fair thing to reduce the herd after he had made arrangements to milk the full herd. Plaintiff consulted a- solicitor and received legal advice on the matter, but Scown was adariiant that he should be discharged unless lie engaged a married couple. On August 6 Scown told him to go, and he left a week later.

Scown in evidence said that during haymaking Kalin had asked for the herd, as Chamberlain was leaving, but witness said that no arrangements could be made until Chamberlain stated his intentions. On July 1 Kalin was told he could carry on' if he engaged a married couple, and Kalin thought he would be able to do so. Three weeks later Kalin said that the married couple wanted £7 a week and he could not afford that amount. A fortnight later, as the cows were coming in, he told Kalin that he could not give him much longer. Defendant later told him that he had taken legal advice and would employ what labour he liked. Kalin was then given a day to engage a married couple or get out, and as lie did not comply with the conditions he told him to go. As Kalin had stayed on the farm after the end of June, witness had thought he intended to engage a married couple as agreed. In giving judgment, ' his Worship said he knew something about sharemilking contracts, as he had heard a great many now, but this was the first occasion that he had ever heard that a farmer had let the end •of June, July, and part of August go by without having an agreement signed up. He was quite satisfied that up to a sriven time it was tacitly agreed that Kalin was to carry on. The work on the farm was being carried on during the time, and the sharemilker was entitled to his wages during that time. Judgment would be for Kalin on the counter-claim for £sl 15s, court costs £2, and solicitor’s fee £3 3s. On the claim, judgment -would be for plaintiff for the amount claimed (which was admitted), £79 5s sd, court costs £2 15s, and solicitors’ fees £3 19s.