MOTOR MECHANICS

Wairarapa Times-Age, 13 May 1938, Page 2

MOTOR MECHANICS

BREACHES OF AWARD. NAPIER FIRM CONVICTED. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, May 12. A ruling that the defendant had committed breaches of the Dominion motor mechanics’ award was given by Judge O’Regan in the case of the Inspector of Awards, Napier, against Anderson and Hansen, Ltd., Napier, heard in the Arbitration Court. Plaintiff sought to recover £lO penalty in each case, alleging that defendant had on each of two occasions combined with other named persons to defeat the provisions of the award by entering into arrangements for the sale of benzine and oil at the premises of the other persons, with the result that these persons received less than the wages prescribed by the award. The defence contended that each contractor was independent and submitted that the inspector must prove that there was intention to defeat the award, and that the contractor in each was a worker.

Judge O’Regan, in concluding his judgment, said that it would be noticed that in each case quoted where the defendants had been successful the contract was either for a definite period or for the performance of work specified and limited. That characteristic was strong evidence of a genuine contract of indefiniteness. There was strong evidence against the defendant in the actions brought by the inspector that there were certain undeniable features, namely, that the contract was and purported to be for mere tenancy at will; that the tenant might buy the materials only from the defendants and that the property in goods did not pass until payment actually had been made. These were three facts strongly indicative that the agreements were not genuine, and the strongest in that direction was the fact that the tenancy was one at the will of defendants. Intention could be inferred only from facts, said Judge O’Regan, and the inspector had proved that the facts were compatible only with an infraction of section 3 of I.C. and A. Act. Even supposing, however, this was putting the position too strongly it was clear that the onus of proof was on the defendants, and that had not been discharged. No penalty was imposed, a conviction being recorded in the hope that the publicity of these proceedings would prevent a repetition of the offence.