WAGES CLAIM

Hokitika Guardian, 9 April 1937, Page 4

WAGES CLAIM

IN WARDEN'S COURT

RESERBED DECISION GIVEN

At the Warden’s Court to-day the Warden, (Air Raymond Pernor) gave Lis reserved decision in the claim of Charles AlcLean v. Itimu Gold Dredging Coy., Ltd. The claim was heard on March 17.

the plaintiff succeeded in the claim on the daily rate, but failed in the monthly (claim. The/ judgment given was as follows :

Plaintiff alleged that he wa s the holder of a Miner’s Right and was employed h.v the defendant company for a period commencing 5-11-31 and ending 31-3-34 at a daily rate of 14/- and for a period commencing 1-4-34 and ending 30-9-36 at a monthly remuneration of £2O. He stated under the Alining Act of 1926 he was entitled to be paid at one and a half times the ordinary pay lor work on Sundays and claimed £95 13/-. For the first period at the daily

rate he claimed £25/12/6, and for the second period at the monthly rate, lie claimed 0-15/10/-, a total of £7l/2/8. The defence contended that he had been paid time and a half for Sunday work and that there was nothing owing to him.

McLean commenced as a labourer and later became an extra man. The ruling rate was 12/6 and the company paid 14/- in order to take care of defendant’s Sunday work at time and a half. Tho men were paid by the company at a daily rate in excess of the ruling rate. ’Jin' Warden said lie did not think tho Company’s statement as to what was paid the men on the daily rate was in accordance with the documentary evidence covering the wages paid during the second period. In the case of a worker paid monthly, the Company was able to prove an express declaration as to tbe method adopted in arriving at the monthly wage, and was able to show there bad been a degree of publication, including publication to the Mines Department, ft showed further that by its payrolls the method was fully carried into effect. The defendant Company sought to establish that the daily rate of wages at the time was 12/6, because outside employers were paying this rate, but there was no evidenco that the Company had adopted 12/6 as the basis of the daily wage. Actual?,v the Company paid 11/-, and in paying this it did not agree with each worker that 12/0 was the ordinary pay, and 16 the provision for possible Sunday work. It would seem that a man would receive 11/- a day even if be never worked on Sunday, and that a man who worked every Sunday would also get 11/-. Even if the defendant Company had proved its basic wage was 12/6 with 1/(5 extra for Sunday work, it can be shown that this artifice would not always secure the intended result.

If any employees had worked on Saturday and also on Sunday and then for some reason had been stood down lie would under the Company’s system he paid 28/- for two days’ work. But if 12/6 was the ordinary rate no should have received 31/3, two days at 12/6, and an additional 6'3 for Sunday. For this reason the Warden said he did not think that the defendant Company had shown that time and a half bad been paid for Sunday work.

Plaintiff was entitled to succeed in his claim for the first period. .lodgment was given plaintiff for .£25,12/8. with witnesses expenses and court costs and solicitors fees as in the claim for .£25/12/8.