APPEAL DISMISSED

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 19883, 9 March 1939, Page 4

APPEAL DISMISSED

LIABILITY FOR WAGES PUBLIC CONTRACTS ACT AWARD RATE MINIMUM Giving judgment in the Supreme Court this morning in the appeal of W. J. Lopdell against the decision of the magistrate in respect of a claim for wages, Mr. Justice Northcroft dismissed the appeal and upheld the right of the respondent, Hilton Hovell, to receive award rates of wages for work performed for the appellant on a bridge-building contract.

Reviewing the arguments submitted by counsel. His Honour stated that appellant was the contractor for a bridge work at Te Araroa, and employed Hovell at a rate below that fixed by the award. Later Hovell made a claim to the difference between the rate paid to him and the rate laid down in the award covering that class of work.

Counsel for appellant had argued that the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act covered the case, and that under that Act the respondent was barred from claiming except for a small amount at the end of his term of employment, the Act laying down the rule that claims which were delayed for more than a year became invalid.

Respondent, on the other hand, invoked not only the award rate, tout also the Public Contracts’ Act, 1903, section 3 of which laid upon contractors on public works the obligation of paying award rates as a minimum, and locality rates where these were higher than the award rates. His Honour felt that respondent was entitled to rest his claim on this section, and to exert the -right of collecting money due to him up to the full term of statutory limitation.

It had been argued by counsel for appellant that where the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Aci applied, it had the effect of repealing the public contracts statute, in such matters as might reveal repugnance between the two. His Honour said that on this point he could find no repugnance, nor could he uphold the viev. that the Public Contracts Act applied only to work not specifically covered by an award. The Act did contemplate the existence of an award, he pointed out, and gave the employee the award rate as a minimum.

He agreed with the decision of the magistrate, Mr. Justice Northcroft concluded, and found that respondent was entitled to found his action on section 3 of the Public Contracts Act. Judgment 'would be for the respondent, with costs.

At the hearing, Mr. D. E. Chrisp appeared for the appellant and Mr. A. A. Whitehead for the respondent.