INTERESTING LAW POINT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2071, 4 May 1907, Page 1

INTERESTING LAW POINT.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT AND A UJ3ITR ATION AWARDS. An interesting point of law in regard to the position of the Magistrate's Court in connection with Arbitration matters was raised by Mr Wright in the ease of 'William Alexander v. the Christchurch Steam Laundry Company, heard at Christchurch on April 25tli, in which plaintiff claimed a sum of money as wages, being the difference between the minimum wage under the engineers' award and the actual amounts paid to him. After plaintiff’s case had closed, Mr Wright, who appeared for the defendant company, contended that the case was not within the jurisdiction of the court. He said it was a matter under the direct control of the Arbitration Coui’t, which had the power of dealing with breaches of the award, and this court could not overlido the powers of a higher court. He cited the case of Rees v. Baillie. in which a young man had been employed by a printer at Pahiatua. On the making of a typographical industrial workers’ award the minimum rate of wages was fixed, but Baillie still continued to pay the young man less than the wage stipulated hv the award. An information was laid, and the . employer Baillie was fiend. Counsel submitted the case was on all-fours with the present one. There could not have been a dispute in the lower court, as the young man Rocs was under the typographical award. The defendants

in tile present case denied most emphatically that Alexander was under the award of the Arbitration Court. They had been served with citations issued by the Engineers’ Union, and the speaker had instructions to defend the action before the Arbitration Court, the company contending they had an absolute defence to the charge. The position created would he anomalous if it was assumed that the Magistrate’s Court was to decide a. case of this nature. The plaintiff, as a matter of fact, was not under this award, and plaintiff practically asked the Magistrate to decide who was under the award. Counsel submitted the Court had no power to do so. One or two cases of a somewhat similar character to that, under notice ran,ic before the Arbitration Court. The speaker said there was very grave doubt as' to whether or not the plaintiff could claim the. benefit of the. award and as fo whether Alexander was a firemen under the award. It was a matter for the Arbitration Court to disclose. Counsel further mentioned a ease brought before the Arbitration Court by the Building Trades Tniborers’ Union ill regard to non-payment of the minimum wage, and a decision of Mr. -Justice Chapman’s on a. case showed that the power of the Arbitration Act was legislative and also that the employee was assumed to he. equally guilty in receiving less than the minimum wage. Another point raised by counsel was that the award under which the claim was brought was not in force, and there • were no saving rights. The Magistrate said that on the facts there was a clear and fragrant breach of the award, and a certificate given hv the Engineer to plaintiff put the defendants out of Court at once. If he used the jurisdiction he was given, lie would throw the onus on the defendants to prove that he had used it wrongly. But he would not exercise it. He would reserve his judgment. Mr. Upham said that he would show that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to deal with the matter and quoted the case of Williams, a baker, whose case was before the Arbitration Court and Appeal Court for failing to pay the minimum wage. In this case' Mr. Justice Chapman pointed out that it was a proper case for the Magistrate's Court. Counsel said the case in question was similar. Mr. Wright contended that in this particular case the fact as to whether or not this particular man was under the award was not disclosed.

The Magistrate said that he held rather with Air. Upham, but he would reserve his decision. He might Ol might not he correct.