INDUSTRIAL APPEALS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume L, Issue 15331, 18 June 1913, Page 11

INDUSTRIAL APPEALS.

STATE OF THE LAW.

PREVIOUS RIGHT CURTAILED.

[BY telfjgraph.— OWN correspondent.]

Wellington, Tuesday. The Labour Department recently brought an action against the Wellington City Corporation in the Magistrate's Court, for an alleged breach of the Wellington Tramways Employees' Award, inasmuch as a fireman named Tomlinson was employed in the tramway power-house to do certain repairing work, consisting of shifting an air block attached to the furnace. It was held by the magistrate that this was repairing work, tho rate of "pay for which was Is 4d an hour, whereas Tomlinson was only paid Is 3d. Judgment was given against the corporation. The corporation was prosecuted for not employing a trimmer on Sunday mornings. In this prosecution tho magistrate also found against tho corporation. The penalty claimed in each case was £10.

Against both these decisions, tho corporation appealed on a point of law, and on matters of fact. In it« judgment today, the Arbitration Court stated that tho Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act of 1911, made it a condition"*of the tfppeal that tho amount claimed hi the action was not less than £5, but' it did not specify any other conditions affecting the appeal or indicate the nature of the appeal or the procedure to be followed to ascertain these things. Reference must be made to tho provisions contained in Sections 155 to 158, of the Magistrate's Court Act, 1908. Under Section 153 an appeal fijpm a Magistrate's Court to the Supreme Court, on matter of fact, could be brought only where the amount of the claim exceeded £50. This provision applied therefore to appeals from the Magistrate's Courts to the Arbitration Court, unless a contrary intention was indicated in the Act of 1911. There was nothing in the Court's opinion, to indicate any such intention, and it must hold that an appeal on a matter of fact from the Magistrate's Court to the Arbitration Court, could be mad? only where the amount of the claim in the action exceeded £50.

"It seems fairly certain," continued the judgment, " that the purpose of the draftsman responsible for the Act of 1911. was to enlarge the right of appeal in these cases. The result of his labours, however, has been to curtail, instead of to enlarge the existing right of appeal. He -has taken away the right of appeal on a point of law in cases where the amount claimed was below £50. In such cases an appeal might be brought on a point of law with the leave of the Magistrate's Court. That has been taken away, but in other respects the subject of appeals has been left exactly where, it was before the Act of 1911 was passed. The case is an illustration of how <an incompetent draftsman may produce a result exactly tho opposite of that which he set out to achieve. The. Court held, therefore, that' the appellant had no right to appeal on matter of fact in these cases. The appellant had a right of appeal in point of law, subject to the leave of the Magistrate's Court, but tho appeals had not been brought in that way, therefore they could not be entertained, and must be" struck out.