THE BONUS AGAIN

Te Aroha News, Volume XLI, Issue 6440, 19 January 1924, Page 5

THE BONUS AGAIN

WAIHOU SHAREMILKER’S CLAIM SHOULD BONUS BE INCLUDED CLUDED THE MAGISTRATE’S DECISION IN FAVOUR In a sharemilker’s claim heard in the Magistrate’s Court, T e Aroha, on Thursday, before Mr J. G. L. Hewitt, S.M., the chief point at issue centred round the inclusion of the bonus in computing the sharemilker’s share.

A. B. Chandler, sharemilker, Waihou, claimed from Alfred Joseph Ballard, farmer, Waihou, the sum of £43/12/8, being balance of money due for work done November 11th, 1922, to June 30th, 1923. The claim was based on the production of 9,456 lbs butter-fat at 6d per lb, £236/8/-, less £lB4/0/8, less £B/14/8 due for electric power, leaving a balance of £43 12/8 as claimed.

Mr Carroll appeared for the plaintiff (Chandler), and Mr Gilchrist for the defendant (Ballard). In opening his case for the defendant Mr Gilchrist pointed out that the agreement provided that the plaintiff was to get one-third of the monthly cheque as long as the price paid for butter-fat did not exceed 1/6 per lb. He furthermore was to receive a minimum of 5d per lb. That is, if butter-fat fell below 1/3 per lb the defendant’s monthly share had to be brought up to 5d per lb. The agreement said “monthly cheques” and could not mean anything else, and a third of the “monthly cheque” is all he is entitled to, and no part of the final bonus.

The Magistrate: The agreement shows that the plaintiff’s share is to be made up to at least sd, but not to go above Gd. If the monthly cheque shows that the third is less than 5d it is to be made up to sd. Mr Gilchrist: The question of bonus is not to come into the payments.

Mr Carroll contended that the question of the bonus must come into the matter. His client must not be victimised by the method or delay in payment of the .bonus by a dairy company. The share to be paid was one-third of the amount received by the farmer. The intention of the agreement was to give one-third of the share received but not exceed 6d. If the pay-out was less than 1/6 the sharemilker was entitled to one-third of the pay-out, but there was to be a minimum of sd.

His Worship said he thought that it was contemplated when the agreewas made that there were other monies coming beside the regular monthly payments, and if there was anything to be made up, it was to be made up out of those other monies. The bonus had to be taken into consideration. This, His Worship said, was his ruling on that point. Counsel then agreed that the coun-ter-claim should now be proceeded with, and His Worship concurred.

The counter-claim was for £l9/5/3 on the ground that plaintiff had not carried out his duties or completed the agreement made and that he had been guilty of negligence. That in consequence of the alleged negligence defendant had to make repairs and reinstate damage to the cost of £ls 15/3; £3/10/- was also claimed for the hire of a horse for seven weeks —£l9/5/3.

Alfred Joseph Ballard, farmer, Waihou, deposed that in October, 1922, he had employed defendant on an agreement. The machinery was then in good condition. It was a four cow plant. The cups were in good working order, and there were two sets of spare cups—24 cups in all.There were four claws in good order and a spare claw, and the vacuum pump and belt on motor were in good order. Chandler never complained that the machine was not in good order. He had worked it himself until the time Chandler took over. Chandler had permission to graze a horse but he instead used a horse owned by witness. At the end of January Chandler said the mare was lame, she had no shoes on her. He came home excited and complained of a statement witness had given him that morning. Witness also told him he had no pity for the mare taking her into Te Aroha without shoes. Witness stopped him using the mare on March 18th. As he (witness) went out of the shed a small wheel whizzed past his head. Chandler took the mare again repeatedly in defiance of witness. At the end of April witness defied Chandler to take the mare and he then left her alone. Chandler sometimes used the mare three times a week. Chandler had only one hand beside himself —his wife. Part of the time only his wife did the milking. Witness frequently asked Chandler to fulfil his agree-

meat to have three hands. He did not comply. When witness and Mr Johnson examined the cups three sets were damaged. Holes had been drilled in three cups which had been condemned. by Treloar’s man. Several of the inflators were damaged. When Chandler took over there were 16 inflators in use and 8 spare ones. The Magistrate: The point is what is due to fair wear and tear and what is not due to fear wear and tear — only an expert could say this. The mere fact that repairs had been carried out did not necessarily imply that the milker was at fault. To Mr Carroll: The machines were in use ten years. He had the pump renewed two years previously. Inflations should be renewed every 12 months. He would have expected in the ordinary way to have to renew the rubbers ai; the beginning of the season. He had kept on hand a stock of new rubbers for renewals. He would not admit that he was better off through Chandler not having a horse of his own running on the farm. To His Worship: Counsel admitted that defendant had received in total payments for the season over 1/6 per lb butter-fat.

The plaintiff, Alfred Bruce Chandler, gave evidence that he was a sharemilker in the employ of Ballard. His. duties commenced in October, 1922. He remained in defendant’s employment from October 11th, 1922, to June 30th, 1923. He did his work milking the cows, etc., during that time to the best of his ability. Ballard never at any time relieved him of any of his duties under the agreement. Only twice, two days after he went on the farm, did Ballard complain. Otherwise Ballard made no complaints. Ballard never wrote to him after leaving complaining that he had not carried out his duties. To Mr Gilchrist: Two hands were employed in milking—himself and his wife. They two milked about 67 cows. The agreement. was that he should have three hands. To Mr Carroll: Ballard never attempted to put anyone else on to help him. He and his wife went on to the end of June.

By an’angement it was agreed that Ballard would accept non-suit on the counter-claim.

The Magistrate gave judgment in favour of Chandler for £37/11/4 with ordinary costs on the claim. On the counter-claim Ballard was non-suited without costs.