CLAIM FAILS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22822, 1 September 1937, Page 16

CLAIM FAILS

IMPORTANT DECISION COURT REFUSES 1931 SCALE AWARD NOT OPERATIVE VOCATION" BASIS INVALID [ritcm otra ovrx correspondent] HAMILTON, Tuesday The opinion that under Section 16 of the Finance Act, 1936, wages which were not governed by an award in 1931 could not be raised to tho 1931 level, and that the drivers' award, being made on a purely vocational basis, was invalid, and therefore had no legal existence,' was expressed by Mr. Jus--'tiee Callan in a reserved decision given - in the Hamilton Supremo. Court to- . day. ' » i " , His Honor gave judgment for defendant, Robert Andrew, trading as ( Andrew and Sons, cartage contractors, of To Awamutu (Mr. L. P. Leary and Mr. Lisle Alderton). Plaintiffs won? Patrick Coyle, lorry driver, of To Awamutu, and* Robert Patrick. Anderspn, inspector of of Hamilton (Mr. :.H. T. Gillies), who claimed £3l 17s, ''wages alleged to be due by defendant. ;The wages were stated by plaintiffs to he due to Coyle from July 1, 1936, to December 19, 1936, as the result of legislation embodied in section 16 of •the Finance Ajct, 1936, restoring the •-lavages cuts made in 1931. ~~.Z- The judgment is of considerable importance to many engaged in transport other industries, and when the '.. "case was heard last Friday it was stated ftbat. many thousands of pounds were involved. Questions For Court His Honor was asked to give an interpretation of section 16 of the Finance Act, 1936, and to state "whether the restoration of wages cuts, referred in the section, applied to those who were not covered by awards in 1931. His Honor said the facts, which were admitted, were that Andrew paid bis drivers £3/10s a week for the first year and thereafter £4. Coyle was pajd £3 10s a week, and claimed the difference between £3 10s a week and £1 16s a week, the rate ruling when award wages were reduced in 1931. Defendant said he was never bound bv the drivers' award, and. he also denied.its validity. When the drivers' award, came, into force' in December, 1926, defendant was not eked, and no steps were taken to bind him as a party. The fact that lie was engaged in the carrying„business at the time did not make him subject to the award, said His Honor. The award in question" was cancelled in 1932, and it was plain that throughout its existence defendant never was subject to its provisions. ■ ¥ 3?urpose o2 Act

Section 16 of the Finance Act, 1936. was passed to make provision for the restoration of the rates that were in force immediately prior to April J, 1931, said' His Honor. The purpose of the Act appeared to be limited to the restoration of that which had been reduced.

The object of" the present litigation, however; went beyond that, and was indeed of quite another nature. Plaintiff Coyle sought to have the defendant compelled "to pay him a' rate of remuneration from which the rates oi those workers; whose rates were governed by the award were reduced by 'the order of the 'Arbitration Court in May, 1931. But, said His Honor, ■workers who were employed by defendant never had the benefit of the award, and therefore suffered no reduction by virtue of the general order. If plaintiff could succeed in his claim there would therefore result a so-called "restoration" independently of whether there, had been any "reduction." Further, the effect of this so-called "restoration" would go beyond restoring to a: group of workers rights which they formerly possessed; it would result in giving them new rights they never before possessed. Effect Not Contemplated

In that event, the Statute would produce an effect beyond and other rthan that indicated by the language of the long-.title. So far as lie could "perceive,' every other provision in the Statute relating to rates ofremunera- "" iion was restricted to'effecting a true restoration. After examining the language of tho "section and discussing it in detail, His Honor said that as the rates of remuneration payable to employees of defendant were never rates of remuneration in respect of which there was in yorce an award or industrial agreement, plaintiff's .attempt to invoke section 16 of the Finance Act. 1936, failed. His claim was not based under section 17 (3), and it did not appear that he could make any claim under that section. Judgment must therefore bo given - for defendant. Clarical Workers' Case Referring to the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in the Otago Clerical Union's case, His Honor said defendant's. counsel contended that the effect of that decision was that an award made upon a purely vocational basis was invalid and had no legal His Honor agreed that this ."■was the effect of the decision. He was also of the opinion that the drivers' award upon which the defendant relied " was made in respect of the occupation of driving and not in respect of the business of carrying. It resulted that it was not a valid award, and on this independent ground plaintiff must also fail. Judgment was given for defendant, with cost's on the lowest scale.