COALMINERS’ PAY

Hokitika Guardian, 12 July 1932, Page 4

COALMINERS’ PAY

WEIGHT OR MEASURE BASIS. " r -if DECISION OF APPEAL COURT. Sj (Per Press Association— Copy right i) ■ —•'■ it WELLINGTON, July \ >; The Court of Appeal was to-day oc- -• juried in hearing an appeal from a j augment of Mr Justice Kennedy, In .. A an - action brought .by Samuel Mason. and three oflieis, all miners, of Inverjargill, againi.t tlie Wairiki Coal Coy. 1 ' i'he plaintiffs, pie ded that their wages lepended iq.on the, amount of ccai i ' v -‘ mined by.; them, and; that they were paid according ’to the weight. They claimed that, their coal was not weigh- / ed as required by the Statutes, nor .were-there facilities for weighing provided, and £SO damages was' claimed, under this' heading.

An alternative claim for the same, sum was made for a breach of the Statutory duties imposed by the Coal Miners’ Act, 1925.-: ; . . Finally, damages 'amounting: to £2OO were .claimed for the alleged .failure to comply with the provisions of > : the Weights and Measures ’Act, 1905, and a declaration was paayed for as to the plaintiff’s rights. . : ’.. ’ • The trial Judge had held that ‘ the plaintiffs had proved , that they y vvere thort paid. He also held that v payment by measurement or gnuga was permitted by the Coal Mines Act, and . that, as the plaintiffs accepted emf ' ployment and worked, even under pro. test, on the terms imposed by their employers, they could not now claim ' damages, . - -

The plaintiffs appealed from this de-

cieion, ( I . - . Counsel for the appellant, stated.:’.. A.; that he had abandoned the claim for b ; 'Vb damages, but he still desired a declar- , l ation from the Court of Appeal upon the question as to whether the miners i ~ C we,e entitled, under Section 78 of the. • , Coal Mines Act, 1925, to insist upon payment by weight of the mineral won ; - ( by them. He stated in July, 1928, .a the defendant company decided to pay / its miners by' the amount of ooal, measurement, and not by weight; / and this, he contended, .was .contrary,. - to the provisions ; of ..the Coal Mines Act. ' •: ; j >• i<”)r - 1 At the conclusion.;ofA•-counsel’s■ ad'- ; dress, the Court expressed the opin-., .. f ion that it did .notathink, it neces&My to call up counsel; for respondent. - , : Delivering judgment, ..the Chief Jus-: ; : tice stated that, in his opinion, appellants would be entitled to have ; weighing facilities provided under Sec- Vtion 86, of ,the'. Coal?''Mines- Act, only it they were paid wagesdependent on the weight of' the , mineral won ■by ; ; > them. The employe: s were entitled, ' ymder action 78,; to pay. by, quantity) ; i A V and not by weight, and. if they elected to pay, the employees could not insist \\A that be proviideid, . He' stated, further that • under the v, terms : submitted : by the . defendant;' company, even though ■ they ? worked ■' k*. under protest, nevertheless they had r • created a- binding contract of employ- A | ment, with prevented them frofJ\- V setting up any prior . arrangemejutert/ ■)."> The plaintiffs agreed to work on tow ;.. A. ;: basis of remuneration that three and later two boxes should 1 - constitute , a ’ : ton. The defendant company could not- now fee sued because the boxes • ’ ' contained more than a ton in-, actual weight. The appeal should, therefore, ?j:.. be, dsmissed,- and the judgment of- - -•- Mr Justice Kennedy be upheld, with costs on the lowest scale as . from a ; 1 distance. The other members of the Court concurred.?