OUR ARBITRATION LAWS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1775, 14 March 1906, Page 53

OUR ARBITRATION LAWS.

A MOOT POINT. Ilis Honor the Chief Justice, sitting in Banco, was on Wednesday called upon, in the exercise of his many duties, to listen to argument in a case which may prove troublesome to the Courts in the future: and, indeed, which may require a readjustment of our arbitration laws, however perfect they may appear to be in the eyes of proletariats. 'The plaintiff in the matter was George Reese (for whom Dr Findlay appeared), who entered the employment of Messrs A. Baillie and Co., printers, of Pahiatua, on November 22nd, 1898. At that time he was thirteen years of age. A special arrangement was) made—as it is stated —that Reese should receive from the firm a certain wage for his services. In 1902 the Arbitration Court’s award, prescribing a minimum rate of wage . for printers and publishers, came into operation. At the time this award came into operation Reese was being paid a lower rate of Avage than that prescribed by the award; and he continued to receive that lower rate until some time in June, 1904. In August, 1904, he left the employment of Messrs Baillie and Co. The next stage in the proceedings commenced when Messrs Baillie and Co. were cited to appear before the Arbitration Court by the Inspector of Factories, for having committed a breach of the award. That Court fined Messrs Baillie and Co. £lO and costs, but refused to direct that Messrs Baillie and Co. should hand over the hack pay which had accrued t-o Reese. Reese then proceeded in the Magistrate’s Court to recover the sum of £sl 16s for his “hack pay.” The Magistrate held that the special bargain made between Baillie and Co. and Reese was binding upon Reese, notwithstanding the existence of the award of the Arbitration Court, Reese now appealed from the decision of the Magistrate, and the question for his Honor to determine yesterday wag whether it was possible for an employer and employee to legally enter into a joint and personally agreeable arrangement whereby the employee could legally take a lower wage than that fixed and prescribed by the Arbitration Court’s award. Mr Herdman appeared, for the respondents. Dr Findlay, in his opening remarks, said he thought it was the first instance in which the Supreme Court had been called upon to deal with any matters affecting the legal relationship between master and man under the Industrial Conciliation . and Arbitration Act. In the present action the appellant entered the employment of the respondents when a lad thirteen years of age at a, wage of 5s per week. He was apprenticed to the firm. On June 19th, 1902, the Arbitration Court made an award, which came into operation on July 12th of the same year. Under the. award the appellant, it was submitted, Was entitled to the. additional amount for wages set out in the

claim. It was common ground that tho respondents had been fined £lO for short payment in respect of the appellant. A workman, it was submitted, whether he was an infant in years or not, who was bound by an award could sue an employer bound by the same award for the rates of wages under that award, whatever the nature of the agreement. Secondly, he contended that if the award fixed the minimum rate to bo paid to infants, and the Court was satisfied that that rate was the lowest reasonable rate that should be paid', any agreement o’f an infant to take less than that rate would not bind him or prevent him suing for such rate- The Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act created (1) a legal right to a specific wage, or (2) a status quo workman invested with a right and divested of contractual capacity. This opened up a very wide and a very difficult question. His Honor: You say a workman can make a legal bargain for taking a higher wage than that fixed by the award. Dr Findlay: Yes; the prohibition is only against taking a lower wage. The illegality which affected the contract wag his friend’s difficulty and not his. He was mot suing on an illegal contract, tut on a contract of right created by an award of the Arbitration Court.

Mr Herdman submitted his defence in comparatively few words. He said the Magistrate had held the bargain which the appellant had entered into to be a reasonable one. It seemed clear that people could make special bargains oven in defiance of the statute. "Workman and employer could enter into such agreements at their own risk. Mr Herdman further submitted that even if the Court was against him, in this case there was no question of breach of contract. It could only be regarded as a breach of award. Dr Findlay briefly replied, and his Honor, in reserving judgment, said the case was a very important one, trenching upon the whole working of the Arbitration Act. His Honor added that he might not have time to deliver his judgment before he returned from Napier. The Court then rose.