DECISION RESERVED

Manawatu Times, Volume 63, Issue 47, 25 February 1938, Page 2

DECISION RESERVED

Action Against Rivers Board LENGTHY HEARING NAPIER, Feb. 24. From Qur Own Correspondent. At the conclusion of the hearing of evidence in the case in which the builders’ and general labourers’ and drivers’ unions proceeded against the Hawke’s Bay Rivers Board for alleged breaches of awards, Mr. J. Miller, S.M., reserved his decision in the Magistrate’s Court at Napeir to-day. The proceedings were particularly lengthy, beginning at 10 o’clock yesterday morning arid concluding at 12.30 p.m. to-day, with an adjournment from 5 p.m. yesterday to 10 o’clock this morning. Mr. H. Kay appeared for tie complainants and Mr. L. W. Willis for the defendants, i Richard J. Little, in evidence, said he •was a gang overseer employed by the board, and he understood he could be dismissed by the board. He had no Authority to engage or dismiss men. When Mr Willis asked if the men or the union were behind the proceedings, Mr Kay objected, and His Worship stating that the union was prosecuting and therefor*? in the same position as the police, upheld objection, Mr Willis remarking that he understood the mer. were satisfied and he contended the} had been bludgeoned into the proceedings. His question had concerned the credibility of the witnesses. “Has Mr Kay told you what to say?” Mr Willis then asked. Witness: “He hasn’t told me to say anything.” Witness reiterated that he was a sermant of the board, and was paid by the yard. He admitted having signed a contract covering conditions and that the men with him sometimes collected more than award rates. He admitted they were on a co-operative contract agreement find it did not bind the Rivers Boarc . Witness could allocate the men to working parties. Any complaints about; the work came to him. Their method of working was controlled by him, but he considered he was an overseer. If he was an independent contractor tho board would have no say as to the actual method of the work so long as the work was done to specifications. He wa s not aware that in builders’ contracts the architect was the sole arbitor and could determine the contract if satisfactory progress was not made. Gerald Satherly, District Employment Officer, in answer to Mr Kay, said it was usual, when local-body men’s engagements were terminated, for them to get leaving certificates. Asked if he had one in respect of seven men put off Rivers Board works, he claimed privilege, but answered in the affirmative when His Worship suggested that the question should be answered. However, he would not produce the documents. Nor would be commit himself as to whether his Department had regarded the men as employees of the board. In answer to Mr Willis, he said the certificate s were to determine when and under what circumstances the men had left then: jobs. It did not matter to the Department under what arranges ment they ha d worked. Addressfng the Court at the conclusion of the unions’ case, Mr Willis said Mr Kay had opened by mentioning what was said at i;he board’s meeting about the works having to cease if the unions won its case. Those works were carried out largely on Government subsidy. ( It was arranged that the men should ;go on contract, and they had earned a igood deal more than the award rates. Counsel suspeicted the union was at the ‘back of the action rather than the men, land, if the union would not permit ’them to carry on, then the works must jeease. Mr Kay had spoken of a “threat” at the board meeting, but counsel maintained that no threat had been made j— ; merely a statement of fact ■ •‘Moist Uncalled For.” The board regarded the action as most uncalled for, and was of the opinion that the majority of the men did not support it. Mr Kay seemed to think that when men joined his union they must be at its beck and call. If that were so, then everyone might be !the slave of some trade union secretary. (The fact was that the men need not [join the unio n if they worked as contractors and not as employees. S The contract itself was absolutely Iconclusive, continued Mr Willis, providing that the contractor was independent and the other men co-operative hot employees; of the Rivers Board. The ‘contractors wi th him. They clearly were plaintiffs j&ught all the advantages of the contract, but refused to be bound by the parts that did not suit them. The contract was genuine, and the fact that the men had earned more than award rates spoke for itself. The contract clearly provided that the contractor was independent and the men had nothing to do with the board, although there might be some provisions that would be more consist* int with the relationship of master asid servant. Actually those provisions had been made with the idea of helping the mem. who had been unemDloved.