NOT CITED IN 1926 AWARD

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 193, 1 September 1937, Page 7

NOT CITED IN 1926 AWARD

— Press Association.)

■ — « * — a Emplover Wins Test Case fqr Wage Increase IMPQRTANT PRINCIPLE

(By Telegraph

HAMILTON, Last Night, Eeserved judgment for defendant was given by Mr " Justice Callan in the Supreme Court at HanuBQ11 to-day in an impqrtant tcst case heard on Fridqy last, in which Batrick Coyly, lorry drivqr, of Te Awqmutu, through Eobert Batrick Anderson, inspector of awards, claimed ftam Andrews and Sons, carriers and contractors, £1 17s for wages allegecily due plaintiff through the action of defendant in paying plaintiff £3 10s a week instead of £4 16s a week as provided by the Drivers' Award, 1026, during the period July 1, 1936, to Decemher, 1936. The case was removed by consent from the lower to the Supreme Court on the ground that important prineiples . of law were involved and that an authoritative decision was needed. It was stated in evidence that spme £8000 was at stake on the action of the Northern Industrial District alpne, and some £35,000 throughout^ the Dominion. The chief matter of iegal argument was the interpretation of Section 16 of the Finance Act, 1936, which provided for the Testpration of wages cuts imposed by the general qrdpr of the Arifitration Court in 1932. Delivering judgment, his Honour states that whilo the general oyder reducing wages made by' the Arbitration Court in 1932 affected the Northern Industrial District 's motor and horse drivers' award, 1926, defendant, who was then in business as a carrier and carting contractor, had not been cited in making the award, nor had any steps b?en taken during the currency of tlie award to include hira as a party to it. The mere fact that he had been regularly engaged in that typp of business did not make him subjpet to the award. "The award in question became cancelled, pursuant tq the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act, 1932," continues the judgment. "It is plain 'that throughout its existence defendant was never subject to its provisions. "So far as this statnte affects rates of salaries, wages and other emoluments its purpose appears to be limited to the restoration of that which had been reduced," states the judgment. "The litigation before the Court, however, goes beyond that in that plaintiff seeks to compel defendant to pay him a rate qf rem'uneration from which the rates of those workers whose rates were governed by the award were Teduced by the general order. "Supcess on this claim would go beyond xestoring to a group of workers the xights which they formerly possessed. It wonld result in giving them new rights they never before possesscd, and in that event tho statute would produce an effect beyond and other than that indicated by the language of its long title. "