Company or Contractor?

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIX, Issue 84, 14 August 1923, Page 2

Company or Contractor?

SAWMILL HANDS' WAGES. WHO IS TO PAY? Arthur William Hunter (Mr N. H. Moss) sued the- Pohokura Sawmilling Co. (Mr King) at the Magistrate's Court yesterday for the sum of £9 8s Id.' Mr Moss said the case was a test one. in which fourteen men were interested. The claim was for wages, the Company denying liability, alleging that Sharrock, a contractor, was liable for payment. Tn evidence plaintiff said he had previously worked for tho Pohokura Sawmill Co. He was with them for fifteen months. He had been unable to secure* 1 his pay for the period from Ist to 16th March. Sharrock came to the mill, hut witness got- no notice regarding him. So far as witite-s knew he r was still working for the Company. Witness got hi" s last pay from tho Company's office in Stratford and got no notice of any sort. Witness' boss was Hcllyer. When pay-day came round next no pay was forthcoming. Witness came in and saw Mr MeCluggage, who said Sharrock would have to pay. Witness, hearing that Sharrock was taking a contract, asked Hcllyer how matters stood. Hcllyer said there was no need to worry about the wages, as if Sharrock had a contract ho would have to deposit a sum equal to tho first month's wages. To Mr Kino;: Witness got no notice that Sharrock was taking: over

from March Ist. Witness did not consult Mr O'Dea, Hawera, on the matter in dispute. He did not authorise anybody to act for him through Mr O'Dea. If his nam© appeared on a claim for a lien he would enter no objection, though he* gave nobody any authority to include his name in the claim. Mr King; Have Mr O'Dea's costs been paid? The S.M. (to witness) : You need not answer the question, even if you know. i Mr King; But if witness has paid ; part of tho costs it can be presumed he agrees to his name being included in the claim. I The matter was not pursued. Continuing, witness said he had I received wages for the following fortj night, Mr MeCluggage stating that ! the wages had been paid out of : moneys due to Sharrock under the : contract. j Edwin H. Fazackerley, sawnrillor. I Douglas, gave evidence that previ- ' ously he had worked for the Comi pany. He had had a, long exper;- | once in sawmills. When a contractor I took over.a mill the usual practice j was for the gang to be given notice,

: when the contractor could engage : whoever he liked. Witness saw Mv j MeCluggage, who told him Sharrock | was taking over the mill. Witness 1 asked about wages, and Mr McChig- ' gage said the wages would bo all j right. Hellyer said the cheques would come out just as usual but they did not, and then witness enmo in to see Mr MeCluggage. Rharroc-k was never recognised as boss. Witness got all his orders from Hellyer., Sharrock did rousc- . about jobs. ',. Witness was head henchman, and Sharrock never worked on the bench. Mr Moss asked witness if the price at which Sharrock took the contractwas reasonable. Tho S.M.: What will that show? Do you want to shaw that the contract was a dummy one? Mr King said he would have to object to the bona fides of the contract being questioned. The S.M. ruled Mr Moss' question out of order. Frank Curtis gave evidence on hues similar to previous witnesses. In opening the defence Mr King mentioned that Hellyer would not give evidence, as he had since removed to Auckland. Joseph MeCluggage, chairman of the Pohokura Sawmilling Co., said a contract was made with Sharrock, who was to take over the mill on March Ist. Tho contract was a quite reasonable one. Since Sharroclv had left the mill tenders bad been called for the work. The lowest was Is 6d under Sharrock's price and the highest was 2s Cd over it. When the men came to witness and asked for wages witness guaranteed payment, on strength of an assurance that they could cut sufficient timber to pay tho wages. All the timber they cut in tho second fortnight provided only money enough

for one fortnight's pay, and they wore not paid for the fortnight following March Ist. Statements made by Sharrock as to his financial position were found to be untrue. Hellycr told witness that he had notified the men regarding Sharrock's contract. The S.M. (to witness): It seems to me that the Company is asking the men to suffer for Sharrock's misreprescn t ations. Witness: The Company has suffered a good deal of loss through Sharrock.. The S.M. : Who got credit for the work done while Sharrock was in charge? Witness: Sharrock sot,to work to niter the tramways. Ho wanted everything to ho h'st so. Mr Moss; The Company got the benefit of Sharrock's work. Witness; Tho present contractor 1 id (o take up tho tramways again. Sharrock wasted money on improving the. mill. Witness said he could not give any idea what amount of timber had been turned out during the fortnight in dispute without referenco to the Companv's hooks. Mr TCine notified that he did not intend to call further evidence. The case was then adjourned till next sitting day, to enable Mr duggage to produce a return showing who had had the benefit of the timber produced from March Ist to 16th.