The Star. TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 1908. AN EMPLOYER IMPRISONED.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LIII, Issue LIII, 7 April 1908, Page 4

The Star.

TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 1908. AN EMPLOYER IMPRISONED.

Daliv^rea every «yeum X oj » o'oloox in U«wer lO^i, JWionK*, Awnna, Uy'Uumtn, OiaMfcui. MAoabihi, Aiton, ttuneftiue, lute*. u and

The ctusa d W. Dixon, tlio Drur\' contiactor, is eaciting a geed d=«l ofcomjnent Ujroughout the bominion. It is not only Ui© personal element AvhicL is attracting attention,; the general liability cf employers for payment of bflok wagee undea- the Arbita-atiou Act i&,aJLso -involved. By "hack wages" in this cennectdon we moiin the difference betwCeia the amount paid (and agreed upon by ihe partiesi) and thei amount fixed by the Arbiti-ation Court, Jn^ tto case undecr notice tho- circumstances jixe briefly that after Mr Dkon had been- fined by the Arbitration Court for broach, of award in employing an alleged incompetaat journeyman at mutually agie«d wtoa without i<j pcmiit^ lie was proceeded against by the jowneymaoi w>. reco>vor Kia back wages — the diflfovemee bt.tweep the wages agreed upooo. and tJie award, rates. The Magistrate ibel oire whom thx* case was heiartl appeared to have consideired tliat the- Bench had no option in Ihe mutter, and promptly enforced what' he regartitd as the* law, condemning Mr Dixoh to pay tht»e "back wages," amounting tp ov.er £20, witfi the alternative of" two mouths' imprisonment. In tho first placet' it should be rioted that the ArbitratJ.i>n Court inflicted a fine of uykm Mr Dixon for. tho breach 61 award nndi {£c fine was paid. Subsequently tho employe© sued for back (that ia underpaid award) wage®, and was wccesafulj but Mr Dixon . preferred to go- to prison, rather than pay. From Uio telegraphed, roifiarks of Mr Novthcroft, S.M., it appeai-ed that Mr Dixon regarded the contract with hisi employte as one which no law could upset, but from .a letter in the correspondence columns of un~ Auckland papez-- it seems that tho. defence upon which Mr Dixon, relied was that the man employed was his apprentice), and he was given no opportunity to prove this in Court. Hence the public indignation. The AucKland Herald is vigorously calling for Mr Dixop's immediate,, release on the grounds that the matter should have waded upon iJic Arbitration Court fine having been paid. It cannot be-demitd, however, that the law in this case makes thei enfployer responsible, and we cannot see how that responsibility can be disregarded. The law does no-t allow an employer and employee freedom of contract If the law is unsound it should be amended, but whetiier acii'nd or net it must be respected so long 'as it remains m tho statutes. If the Legislaturt" had fjddpted a suggestion! . mado ,by the Employers' Fodt»rationi somo time ago, the position, createjl by the Dixon case would have been ayqdded. What tho Fcdeora.tic-'n suggested was that the following fttovrajch 1 should bo, mcorporated in, the Arbitration Act: — "No^ worker shall have any 'claim upon any employer fc-r wagf<» or overtime wh'ch such -workman may consider to be due to him over and a^oyei the amount of wages, end overtime paid tp him or.. the. regular payday by hw employer unless such workman stall, on or before .the next ensor.ng payday, demand payment thereof." This proposal Is worthy of consideration for the penalty alrendy provided for punishing a bT(«<dh| of ar. award in mutually arranging fcr , payment, a£ le«s, than the award rate seems ;' adequate. As the lav s'tends now tha " distribution o£ legal r^ponsibility bctwiecii employe* 1 at:d eimployeeis , lop-saded.