APPEAL COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 1812, 19 July 1906, Page 2

APPEAL COURT.

RF.SS ASSOCIATION Wellington, last night. The Appeal Court was occupied to-day with hearing the oaee of Baillie and Co. v, Arthur Reece. Appellants are printers at Pahiatua,i and respondent was employed not as an apprentice, but worked for wages. In 1902 an award was made in the Arbitration Court fixing the minimum wage for primers’ employees, and appellants were parties to that award. Respondent continued in their employ for two years after the award, receiving less wages than the minimum stated in the award, but no contraot was made by him to take loss than minimum rates, and appellants did not comply with the provisions of the Aot, which allows a lower rate to be paid in certain oases. Appellants had been fined for a breaoh of the award, and no portion was paid respondent, who began the action claiming £sl 16s, the diffeience between his rate of pay and the minimum wage in the award. The magistrate at Pahiatua decided against him, but in the Supremo Court the Chief Justice held that respondent was entitled to recover. It was from this latter decision appeal was now made. The oase raises a very important question, and is the first of its kind in tne colony. The Arbitration Court has been in the habit when finding employers were paying less than the minimum fixed by the award to order part or whole of the fine to bo paid the employee, and it is generally oon. sidered an employee has no further remedy. If the Chief Justioe’s decision were upheld every employee paid less than the minimum wages fixed by arbitration in his case would be able to bring an aotion to reoover the balance, and the result would involve much litigation and many thousands of pounds. Mr Herdman, for appellants, contended that respondent must have known he was entering into an illegal oontraot, and therefore could nos now bub on it. Lator —ln the case of A. Baillie and Co. v. Reese, Mr Herdmon concluded his argument on behalf of the appellants this afternoon. Dr. Findlay then addressed the Court on behalf of respondent. He commenced by remarking on the coinoidence that three Judges on the Bench Cad all presided in the Arbitration Court and were well versed in the provisions and scope of the Arbitration and Oonoiliation Act. Ho then contended that the Act fixed the status of workmen subject to it, and prevented them from making contracts in variation of the status. Acoeptanoe of a lower rate of wages by respondent was therefore not an illegal contract for respondent oould not make a oontraot Respondent oould euo in the Magistrate's Court to recover his wages, and the faol that his employers had been fined in the Arbitration Court for paying less wanes than the award rate did not affeot rospfnden. aright. Mr Findlay concluded bis argument at 3.45, sod Me Herdman then briefly replied. Judgment was reserved.