Flaxmill Board Charges

Horowhenua Chronicle, 23 September 1916, Page 3

Flaxmill Board Charges

ALLEGED UK EACH OK AWAIU>. At the I'almerston North Magistrate's trat(;'.s Court on Tuesday morning, Mr J. \V. Poyuton. S.M., <!,eift cred reserved judgment in the case ol the Manawatu Flaxmills Industrial Union of Workers v. F. >S. Easton and Coliyer. a claim for fclfr for an alleged branch of the award in that the defendants charged the null employees at linston's mill ll's per week for board contrary to the provisions ol" clause 7 of the award. fins Worship judgbent was as follow*: In this case the defendants are sued for a bleach of the Welington District Flaxmills Employees' Award by charging flaxmiil workers liJs per week instead of 17s (id. the award for board- The clause in the award which relates to charging for board .says: ''Where board is provided for worker.-, the fool shall be sufficient in quantity and of good, quality, and the chage therefor, whether board shall be provided dir eclly by the employer or by any persou under contract with him. .shall uiot exceed 17> <id per week, inn* shall any additional charge be made by way of lent for use of building-;, payment for 1 use of cooking utensils, or otherwise howsoever.'' One of the defendants is the employer and the (.tiler provides the board. According to the evidence of both defendants the employer gets the benefit or profit from the supply of food or lodgings to the men ami there is no contract or understanding between defendants as to these supplier. The, employer gets from the boarding-house-keeper ">.s per week as rent for the use of the buildings, but he can purchase food supplies where he likes and the employer gets no commission on the value of the goods supplied to him bv tradesmen, liefore raising the change for board from 17s Od to 19s he diid not consult the employer, who no control over him whatever. On these points, which 1 must accept as proved. 1 cannot .find that there has heen a breach of the award. It applies only to eases where board is .-upp'ied by the employer or someone under a contract with him to do so. Tn the present ease the boardinghotise-kooper is in exactly the same position as an.v other private person. He 'can charge his boarders what lie likes, or rather, as .much as they are willing to pay. Payment by him of rent for the use of tile boardinghouse does not. of course, constitute a contractorial relationship with the employer to supply hoard. Judgment will be for defendants with costs. Mr Guy, instructed by Messrs O'Regan and Dickson, appeared Ifor plaintiffs, and Mr Tunes for defendants. fn reply to Mr Guy, his Worship said he would fix securities for appeal at .CO (is.