Payment of Wages.

Pelorus Guardian and Miners' Advocate., Volume 17, Issue 58, 24 July 1906, Page 5

Payment of Wages.

AN IMPORTANT POINT. Auckland, July 21. In defending an Epsom carter named Thomas S. Hill, summoned before Mr Kettle, S.M., for neglecting to pay two employees their wages weekly, Mr J. R. Reed contended that the Workmen’s Wages Act did not provide a penalty for a breach of the particular section dealing with payment of wages, the section being really to make it clear that wages were due weekly. Whoever heard, he continued, of a statute making a crime of a man’s neglect to pay a civil debt? The men’s wages would be paid before a civil action was heard, and it was not right to make a man a criminal under such circumstances.

The Magistrate replied that the man who broke such a law coqld not be regarded as a criminal, and if he could show good reasons why wages could not be paid regularly be was not liable,

Mr Reed quoted an expression of opinion by the late Chief Justice, Sir James Prendergast, in giving judgment in Cash v. Chaffer, as follows “ I think this Act (the W orkmen's Wages Act) was only intended to apply to a case where there are three parties, not necessarily before the Court, but three parties'concerned—the employer or contractee, the contractor, and the working man," In face of this judgment, Mr Reed submitted that his Worship could not deal with the matter under notice.

Mr Skelton, who represented plaintiffs on behalf of the Auckland Carters’ Industrial Union, said the Act was described in the heading as " an Act to ensure belter provision for the payment of wages to workmen," and such declaration was quite contrary to the opinion of the Judge. Mr Kettle decided to dismiss the case, remarking that he could not go against the decision of the Supreme Court. Mr Skelten accordingly asked for leave to appeal, as the question affected the whole body of workmen. Leave to appeal was granted.