PAYMENT OF MINERS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21694, 12 July 1932, Page 9

PAYMENT OF MINERS

MEASUREMENT OR WEIGHT? AN APPEAL DISMISSED. (Per United Press Association.) , WELLINGTON* July 11.,, The Court of Appeal was occupied today hearing an appeal from the judgment of Mr Justice Kennedy in an action brought by Samuel Mason and three others, all miners, of Invercargill, against the Wairaki Coal Company. The plaintiffs pleaded that their wages depended upon the amount of coal mineff by them and that they were paid according to weight. They claimed that the coal was not weighed as required by statute, nor were facilities for weighing provided, and £SO damages were claimed under this heading. An alternative claim for the same sum was made for a breach of the statutory duties imposed by the Coal Mines Act, 1925. Finally, damages amounting to £2OO were claimed for alleged failure to comply with the provisions of the Weights and Measures Act, 1905, and a declaration was prayed for as to the plaintiffs’ rights. The trial judge held that the plaintiffs had not proved that they were short paid and he also held that payment by measurement or gauge was permitted by the Coal Mines Act, and as the plaintiffs accepted employment and worked, even under protest, on the terms imposed by their employers, they could not now claim damages. The plaintiffs appealed from this decision. Counsel for the appellants stated that he had abandoned the claim for damages, but he still desjred a declaration from the Court of Appeal upon the question whether the miners were entitled under section 78 of the Coal Mines Act, 1925, to insist upon payment by weight of the mineral won by them. He stated that m July, 1928, the defendant company decided to pay its miners by the amount of coal measurement and not by weight, and this, he contended, was contrary to the provisions of the Coal Mines Act. At the conclusion of counsel’s address the court expressed the opinion that it did not think it necessary to call upon counsel for the respondent. - Delivering judgment, the Chief Justice (Mr Justice Myers) stated that in his opinion the appellants would be entitled to have weighing facilities provided under section 80 of the Coal Mines Act only if they were paid wages dependent on the weight of the mineral won by them. The employers were entitled under section *8 to pay by quantity and not by weight, and if they elected so to pay the employees could not insist that weighing facilities should be provided. He stated further that as the plaintiffs had accepted employment under the terms submitted by the defendant company, even though they worked under protest, nevertheless they created a binding contract of employment which prevented them from setting up any prior arrangements. The plaintiffs agreed to work on a basis of remuneration that three and later that two boxes should eoustitute a ton. The defendant company could not now be sued because the boxes contained more than a ton in actual weight. The appeal would therefore be dismissed and the judgment of Mr Justice Kennedy would lie upheld, with costs on the lowest scale as from a distance. The other members of the. court concurred in this decision.