RATES OF PAY

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22819, 28 August 1937, Page 15

RATES OF PAY

IMPORTANT ISSUES

CASE UNDER FINANCE ACT LARGE SUMS INVOLVED JUDGE RESERVES DECISION [by TELEGRAPH —OWN CORRESPONDENT] HAMILTON, Friday A complicated and important case affecting many people engaged in various industries came before Mr. Justice Callan in the Hamilton Supreme Court to-day. The plaintiffs were Patrick Coyle, a lorry driver, Te Awamutu, and Robert Patrick Anderson, inspector of awards, Hamilton, and the defendant was Robert Andrews, trading as Andrews and Sons, cartage contractors, To Awamutu. Mr. H. T. Gillies, Crown solicitor, appeared for tho plaintiffs, and Messrs. L. P. Leary and Lisle Alderton for tho defendant. The case was removed from the Magistrate's Court at Te Awamutu to the Supreme Court for determination on the ground that important and intricate principles wore involved which should be definitely and authoritatively settled. The case involved the interpretation of section 16 of the Finance Act, 1936, the exact point raised lieing whether an employer who was not bound by an award in 1931 was compelled by the operation of the section to pay award rates of wages as from July, 1936. Employer Not Party to Award

The inspector claimed £3l 17s from Andrews and Sons for wages it was contended were due to their employee, Coyle, from July 1, 1936, to December 19, 193 G. During this period Coyle was employed by defendant as a driver of a motor vehicle and was paid £3 10s a week, instead of £4 16s as provided by tho drivers' award of December 16, 1926. Defendant admitted that Coyle was employed at £3 10s a week, but claimed that he was not obliged to pay him the award wage of £4 16s as he (defendant) had never been bound by such an award.

It was contended on behalf of the Labour Department that the question at issue was whether all employers engaged in an industry as from July 1, 1936, were required to pay the rates in an award which had expired prior to that date, irrespective of whether any employers commenced in business prior to the making of th.'it award or were cited as parties to it or became subsequent parties to it. Importance of Interpretation lan Clcndon Howard, assistant secretary of the Auckland Employers' Association. gave evidence that if the department s interpretation placed on section 16 of the Finance Act, 1936, were upheld, arrears of wages'totalling £BOOO in the Northern industrial district and £15.000 throughout the Dominion would have, to be paid with respect to drivers. Numerous other industries were also affected.

Mr. Lear.y stated that Andrews was in business in 1926, but was never bound by the 1926 drivers' award: Counsel contended that the object of the Act was to restore cuts, not to increase wages. Andrews had never made a cut, and if he had lie would ha-ve been bound by section 17 of the Act. Section 17 was specially provided to meet such a case. Counsel contended that Andrews owed Coyle nothing.

Mr. Alderton submitted that there was no valid award affecting the drivers and if there had been one it had been declared void by virtue of the recent Court of Appeal decision. Comment by His Honor

Mr. Gillies contended that driving was an industry and that Andrews was subject to the legislation which was designed to level up the wages to the 19.il rates.

His Honor said that the Court of Appeal had decided that awards made on a-vocational basis had never been in force and had no legal texistence, but it had been stated on a high authority that steps wore being taken to validate all these awards and that.' the validation would be made retrospective. He questioned whether he should delay his decision in view of the proposed validating legislation. Mr. Lcary pointed out that as numerous cases were pending and large sums were involved, even with a short delay an early decision was desirable. His Honor intimated that he would give judgment as soon as he had made tip his mind on the points raised. Decision was reserved.