In Gaol on Principle.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXXII, Issue 12436, 8 April 1908, Page 7

In Gaol on Principle.

Further Particulars.

Statement by Employee's Counsel

With a • view to getting some further light thrown on the case of Mr Dixon, of Drury, who has been imprisoned for refusing to pay back wages, in circumstances which have called forth the sympathy of his fellow-townsmen, a New Zealand Herald reporter on Saturday waited on Mr A. E. Skelton, who acted as counsel for the plaintiff in the lower Court proceedings.

"The facts, so far as I can recollect, are these," said Mr Skelton. "My client was engaged by Mr Dixon as a carpenter on March 13, 1906, and worked for him on three jobs. The award relating to his employment fixed the minimum wages for a journeyman — and, of course, my client came under that designation — at the rate of Is 3d per hour, equivalent to 10s per day of eight hours, and that award was binding on Dixon. The latter, by arrangement with my client, paid him at the rate of 7s a day, or 3s per day less than that prescribed by the award, and as neither of them had obtained a permit sanctioning this, they were duly cited before the Arbitration Court for committing a breach of the award — Dixon in that he employed a journeyman at less than the minimum wage without a permit, and my client in that he worked for less than the minimum wage without a permit. Dixon was fined £b and costs, and the man he had employed 10s and costs. My client then took legal advice as to his right to recover the difference between the wages agreed upon and that stipulated in the award, and as a result proceedings were instituted against Dixon in the Magistrate's Court at Papakura.

"The case came on for hearing before Mr. H. W. Northcroft, S.M., on May 15, jluu/. I appeared for the plaintiff. The defendant, on the other' hand, conducted his own case, and gave evidence claiming that the plain ciff was an apprentice in his employ. He had left, and had reentered his employ again, and he (Dixon; considered him to be an apprentice, and therefore entitled to an apprentice's wages only. The plaintiff contended that when he re-entered defendant's employ he was a journeyman, having qualified aa such, and was therefore entitled to a journeyman's wages. He relied for his claim upon the decision of Sir Robert • Stout, Chief Justice, in the case of Rees v. Bailey, and Co., which was heard in. 1 the Supreme Court, Wellington, in 1906. In this case the Chief Justice ruled that where an 'award Has been made fixing the minimum rate of wages, and the provision in section 92 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1900, allowing a lower rate of wages to be accepted, has not been complied with, any contract by a workman with an employer who is a party to an award, to work for less than the minimum wage is void, and the workman can recover in the ordinary manner the difference between the agreed wages he has received and the minimum fixed by the award. , "'The magistrate upheld the plaintiff's contention and gave judgment for him for the sum of i>2l 6s and costs. The defendant at the hearing, signified his intention of appealing to the Supreme Court, and on May 15th forwarded formal notice to that effect to the Court and to me. I stayed proceedings on the judgment in order to give him every opportunity to prosecute his appeal, but it? tor reasons of his own, did not go on with it. The plaintiff decided to give defendant plenty of time in which to comply wim the judgment, but as the latter showed no such intention a judgment summons was issued against him, and he was called upon to answer this on November 4th. The defendant admitted that he had had sufficient money 3everal times over, in which to pay the amount of judgment since it was made. He then declared his determination not to comply with it, whereupon the magis? trate made an order for the payment of the amount forthwith, or in default two months' imprisonment. "Even after that," concluded Mr. Skelton, "we allowed defendant time in which to pay, but as he still neglected to do so a notice of the order made by the magistrate was served upon him in February last. This, however, met with no response, and last week we were obliged to take out a warrant for his arrest, with the result that he is now undergoing two months imprisonment in Mount Eden goal."