COST OF LIVING BONUS.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17126, 22 April 1921, Page 7

COST OF LIVING BONUS.

Agreement or a^ard? A ca.se involving an important point as to the binding nature of agreements entered into between employers and emplovecs came before Mr \ r . G. I>.iy, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday, when Augustus Will-urn Jones v-Mr C. S. Thomas), an employee of the Dominion Compressed Yeast Company, proceeded against that company (M----31. J. Gresson) for a. sum of £4 Is 6d. 31r Thomas said that the plaintiff was a member of the Canterbury Brewer.. nnd'Mnltsters' Union, the defendant eompahv being rt party to the brewers' ami malsters' award. On November ol':--last, when the Arbitration Court was still considering the question of she cost of living bonus, the employers who came under the award and the emplovees had a conference, and it was decided that the former should grant lihfi cmploVhcS Kh additional bonus ot 2i<l per hour, which brought the total bonus un to ojd. It was agreed th-.it that rate should obtain for six montns from November Ist. Subsequently 'he Arbitration Court announced the bonus as 3s, but all the employers affFcted by the brewers' and maltsters' award tonic up the attitude that they were bound bv their agreement, which was out-si'l-.' tho Arbitration Act altogether, and went on paving the rate agreed upon, with the exception of the Dominion Comprised Yeast Co. The plaintiff wn« claiming for 15 we-ks at Hie rate or us od per week, the difference between the bonus agreed upon by the employers and that p:iid by the defendant company. • "Wo contend,'* concluded Mr Thomas, "that so long as a contract is entered into, the parties to it are bound by it, and we are bringing the case t" see whether Stldh agreements are to bo tarried out, or whether they are to be regarded as mere scraps of proper.' C. H. Hewlett, manager of the Canterbury S<*cd Companv, and .convener titid chairman of meetings of employers affected by the brewers' and maltsters award* gave, evidence as to the agreeniertt made With the employees.' It Was agreed, 'he said) that the rates decided Upon Should remain in force for six months, the object bcin,» to have ft settled, instead of a fluctuating, tats for - that period, fie considered tho agreement binding, no matter whether! the subsequent decision of the Arbitration Court provided for a. greater ox a leaser fato than thht agreed Upon. The Dominion Oompi'essed Yerist Company wßfe the only employers who had failed to stick to the contract. To Mr Oreesoil: Tho defendant company wOs Hot (actually represented at the conference with the employees., "A case Came before t me some time Ago,'' remarked the Magistrate incident; allVj in. Which a big local firm had paid the 98 bonus, and ihenj when tho announcement of the fls bonus was fnttde, deducted the difference from'its ehiployeed wages, Personally, I ..fail to see whftt pqWef it had jo do so. Tho bonus Was paid voluntarily in the 1 first place." , . / ' • Mr GresgOn/ for the defence, submit ted that ihe .tilirintifr. should he nonsuited. 6n. t«rd" eroUridS. One . Waß 6ht> fact thati on the Supposition that it Was ft private agreement, the agreement had been based upon the assumption that the Government Statistician's figures in regard to the 9s bonus Were OOfrecti The Contract' had hot been Whs not holding, as -it had beeri-entered upon under a" mutual mistake.' Bath parties hftd Hfted upon the assumption thht the .Statistician's>''%-• iires, were correct. Whereas the bortus wa§ revised \>f the Court at a later date, and altered to 3s. The second t round Wfia that the document had not eeri tttt industrial. agreement, as it did.hot bind any but t/hose Signing it. Had It been enf of cable, the case for till* Elaintiff in the present action Would live been' brought by an' inspector of ttWafds, instead Of thfefe being ft civil action i the document ootlld not be looked' iipOfl as either an award nr Ah industrial agreement, and -therefore it was tt contract, That contract, Mr Crresgon submitted, had been entered into by tiiutudl mistake. .After hearing brief evidence, tfie Magistrate reserved his decision.