PAYMENT OF BONUS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16537, 22 September 1921, Page 7

PAYMENT OF BONUS.

QUESTION OF VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT. LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED An important reserred judgment was j delivered by Air S. E. M’Carthy, S.M., j at the Magistrate’s Court this morning j in tho case in which L. Griffiths sued j the Dominion Compressed Yeast Com- j pany. Ltd., for £7 Os IGd, an amount alleged to be due to plaintiff by do- j fendant company in respect of an additional bonus on wages alleged, to have been agreed to be fixed by the defendant company to the plaintiff in respect of a period of six months from November 1, 1920. The Magistrate gave judgment for the plaintiff, and in a head note to the judgment said: “Where a number of employers and employees are governed by an award of the Court of Arbitration it is competent for the parties there to to agree voluntarily to an increase of remuneration to the employees without making such agreement a part of the award or of any industrial agreement, and such agreement can be enforced in anj’ Court of competent jurisdiction.” Both parties nro hound by tho Canterbury Maltsters’ and Brewery Employees’ Award. In the course of his judgment the Magistrate pointed out. that this award provided for a war bonus which, however, might at any time during the currency of the award bo continued either wholly or partially or might be increased or terminated as the Court, on the application of any party to the award, or of its own motion, might determine. The Court of Arbitration had not continued to in-

crease or terminate the bonus, nor had it exercised its power under Section 18 of the War Legislation and Statute Law Amendment Act, 1918, to amend the rates of remuneration. Neither hud the parlies entered into and filed any industrial agreement with reference to the bonus. The practice had been, however, for the parties govern.ed by the ward to enter into voluntary agreements with reference to the bonus. On November 5, 1920, it was agreed by a conference of the parties that the basic wage should be Is 8d an hour, together with a bonus of 5-fd an hour. There could be no doubt, the Magistrate said, that- the defendant company considered itself bound by this rate of wages, because, on November 22, 1920, it issued a circular notifying its customers that the increased rate of remuneration to the workers necessitated ail increase of price in their products. Further there could be no doubt that there were before the conference of parties to the award certain figures supplied by the Government Statistician to which the Arbitration Court had given a certain • interpretation. There, could be no doubt also that the members of the conference were guided by these figures and the interpretation. It was afterwards suggested that the Arbitration Court's interpretation of tho figures which related to the rise and fall of tile cost of living was incorrect. However, this suggested znisinterpretatoin not such a fundamental error as to permit of th© operation of the equitable doctrine of mistake. All that had taken place ti as a mere miscalculation by which the parties wore nevertheless bound. The result might be unfortunate for tho employers and fortunate for the workers, but that was not of itself sufficient ground for the Magistrate's Court to rescind or rectify the agreement. Tho defendant company was the only employer governed by the award which had repudiated tlio agreement. Continuing, the Magistrate said that there could be no doubt that the employers present at the conference of delegates were th© defendant company’s agents to agree to the payment of the boiius claimed, and the defendant company was bound by that agreement. There had been several similar conferences, and the defendant company had always paid tho bonus agreed on. The mere circumstance that tho conference might have been misled by the Arbitration Court’s interpretation of the Government Statistician’s figures was immaterial. Judgment would be recorded for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, together with costs. In conclusion tho Magistrate said: “This is a test case and I shall certify that the point to be decided is not onlv novel but affects a large class of persons governed bv the award. I shall certify for a fee c f £2 25.” At tho hearing Mr C. S. Thomas appeared for the plaintiff and Mi* M. J. Gres&on for the defendant company. After judgment had been delivered this morning Mr Grosson applied for leave' to appeal ,and this was granted.