Claim Against Power Board

Manawatu Times, Volume 70, Issue 266, 10 November 1945, Page 3

Claim Against Power Board

FULL SALARY CUT NOT RESTORED, SAYS W. A. WATERS

Sitting last evening, the Hon. Mr. Justice Blair, in the Palmerston North Supreme Court, heard a claim by William Alexander Waters, electrical engineer, of Palmerston North, against the Manawatu-Oroua Electric Power Board, for salary cirts allegedly not restored under the provisions or Section 17(2) of the Finance Act 193 G. The case resolved itself into a legal argument as to whether the plaintiff came under the Act, and had not concluded when the Court rose.

The statement of claim set out that Waters’ remuneration at March 31, 1931, was £941 (£BSO salary plus £9l for house). In August 1931 it was reduced to £846 ISs, in June 1932 further reduced to £719 17s 4d, and in April 1933 still further reduced to £SOO. The board, it was alleged, as from July 1, 1936, had failed to restore his salary to £941 but had granted increases which had taken his salary up as follows: From July 1, 1936, to March 31, 1937, £600; from April 3, 1937, to June 30, 1938, £625; from July 1, 1938, to August 12, 1940, £675; from August 13, 1940, to March 31, 1945, £7OB 15s; from April 1, 1945, to October 15, 1940, to £721 15s. Plaintiff, therefore, claimed an alleged shortage of £2659 Is 2d between July 1, 1936, and October 15, 1945. The defence was that Waters, instead of being employed under a continuous contract service, had been engaged under separate and different contracts of service at varying salaries and different duties and quantities oi work, until July 15, 1945, when he received salary to October 15 in lieu of notice of dismissal. It was denied that the board was under obligation to restore his salary under Section 17(2) ot tho 1936 Finance Act. From April 1, 1937, to June 30, 1935, he had bcenjiaia £625 per annum; from July 3, 1938, to August 12, 1940, £675; from August 13,, 1940, to April 7, 1942, £7OB 15s; from April 8 to October 15, 1945, £721 las. As a further defence it was submitted that Waters had accepted his salary from time to time without protest and so had waived his rights (if any) to further payment of any salary to whicii h*e might otherwise have been entitled. Further, any claim more than six years old was statute barred. Mr. A. M. Ongley appeared as counsel for plaintiff and Mr. H. R. Cooper for the Power Board. Mr. Ongley informed the Court that plaintiff was the only employee of tub Power Board whoso salary was not fully restored.