BREACH OF AWARD

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23499, 13 May 1938, Page 7

BREACH OF AWARD

DOMINION MOTOR MECHANICS AN IMPORTANT RULING (Per United Press Association) WELLINGTON, May 12. A ruling that the defendant committed breaches of the Dominion motor mechanics’ award was given by Mr Justice G’Regan in the case of the inspector of awards (Napier) against Anderson and Hansen, Ltd., Napier, heard in the Arbitration Court. Plaintiff sought to recover a £lO penalty in each case, alleging that the defendant had on each of two occasions combined with other named persons to defeat the provisions of the award by entering into arrangements for the sale of benzine and oil at the premises of these other persons, with the result that these persons received less than the wages prescribed by the award. The defence contended that each contractor was independent, and submitted that the inspector must prove that there was intention to defeat the award, and that the contractor in each case was a worker. Mr Justice O’Regan, concluding his judgment, said it would be noticed that in each case quoted where the defendants had been successful the contract was either for a definite period or for the performance of work specified and limited. That characteristic was strong evidence of a genuine contract. .n----definiteness was strong evidence against the defendant in the actions brought by the inspectors. There were certain undeniable features, namely, that the contract was, and purported to be, for mere tenancy at will; that the tenant might buy materials only from the defendants; and that the property in goods did not pass until payment actually had been made. These were three facts strongly indicative that the agreements were not genuine, and the strongest in that Jirection was the fact that tenancy was one at the will of the defendants.

Intention could be inferred only from the facts, said Mr Justice O’Regan, and the inspector had proved facts compatible only with an infraction of section 3 of the I.C. and A. Act. Even supposing, however, that this was putting the position too strongly, it was clear that the onus of proof was on the defendants, and that had not been discharged. No penalty was imposed, a conviction being recorded m the hope that the publicity of these proceedings would prevent a repetition of the offence.