DEFEATED AWARD.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 234, 2 October 1931, Page 8

DEFEATED AWARD.

“ A Fraudulent Agreement,” says Magistrate. UNDERPAID EMPLOYEE. “ This was a fraudulent agreement, made for the purpose of defeating the Arbitration Court Award,” said Mr H. A. Young, S.M., in giving judgment for defendant for the full amount in a civil case this morning. Henry Cyril Barnett, of Christchurch, a timber merchant (Mr Amodeo), claimed to recover from August Ernest Hedyer, of 105, Opawa Road, a labourer (Mr Hunter), the sum of £36, the amount of a promissory note dated June 29, 1927, and made by defendant and payable to plaintiff or order three months after the date at which the defendant has not paid. The note was due today. Defendant’s son, Stanley Hedyer, was in Barnett’s employ, but was not getting the full award rate of pay. Permission for him to work as an underpaid employee had been refused by the Labour Department. Accordingly the Department sued Barnett for some £3O back wages. This was paid to the Department, but by an arrangement Hedyer paid over part of his j son’s wages each week to Barnett as j compensation. Promissory Note Given. ! The son was subsequently dismissed, and as there was still money owing to Barnett by the youth’s father, defendant made out a promissory note for the amount. It was for *the recovery of this amount that plaintiff sued. Stanley Hedyer said that he paid his father all his wages each week. He did not know what was done with them, and never knew that his father was returning some to his employer. E. H. Parlane, secretary of the Christchurch Sawmillers’ and Timber Yard Employees’ Union at the time, said that he had written to the Labour Department, and an investigation was made as to whether the son was getting the right pay. It was found out that he was not. Hedyer was a handy-man about the yard, and on account of his great strength, probably did more than his fair share of the work. The award wages paid to Hedyer were in the lowest class for such workers. “ Consideration must be given to the Arbitration system.” said Mr Hunter. “ If this sort of thing is allowed once, there will be hundreds. An agreement was made between plaintiff and defendant, in secret, and it was an attempt to get round the Arbitration Act.”