TIMBER MILL DISPUTE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVI, Issue 4822, 8 April 1925, Page 3

TIMBER MILL DISPUTE.

CLAIM AND. COUNTER-CLAIM. At the Paeroa Magistrate’s Court on Monday, before Mr J. H. Salmon, S.M., Percy Manning (Mr E. J, Clendon) claimed the sum of £B3 16s lid from the Waitawheta Timber Co., Ltd., Waikino. The claim was based, on work done and materials alleged to have been supplied during December last.

The claim was not disputed by the company, but a counter-claim amounting to £ll3 7s was lodged. The counter-claim was based on the facts that the company had entered into an - agreement with plaintiff in Decembei, 1923. for the sawing of certain timber and the carrying out of other work incidental to the mlilittg of timber One of the terms of the contractwas that any damage to the mill or plant due to carelessness on the part of plaintiff or his men should be nrade good at the cost of the plaintiff, and that by reason of the carelessness of the plaintiff certain portions of. the mill or plant were damaegd. It had also been agreed that plaintiff should keep the mill clear of refuse, and that condition had not been fulfilled. In consequence of the damage and destraction of portions of the mill and plant defendant had incurred expense in repairs and replacements, and also in clearing refuse from the mill.

It was agreed to take the two charges together.

Robert Toachin. manager of the defendant company at Waikino, produced a copy of the agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant company. Two alterations in the agreement which were initialled by the parties concerned were explained at length. The erection of the mill was carried out by plaintiff, who was then working for the company on a wages bakis. The plaintiff became a contractor to the company in March, 1923. Under the agreement the plaintiff was required to keep the Bill free of refuse, including slabs vnid sawdust. The price agreed upon

was at the rate of 2s 9(1 a hundred

super tcet. An additional 3d a hundred was afterwards made, as plaintiff did not seem to be making a do of it, and could not afford to employ sufficient labour. As the output from the mill was insufficient the company had increased the price so as to assist plaintiff. Threepence a hundred on an output of 8000 super feet a day " was nearly equal to £6. Later the y company had supplied a man to plaintiff to clear the mill of refuse, but the 'work was not satisfactorily performed and the slabs accumulated and re- . tarded the efficient working of the mill, in addition to causing the drains to be blocked. Plaintiff was working short-handed, and to take a man out of the mill to do. the worlj mefant a reduction in output. Some 150 tons

of slabs had been moved by the company, but the plaintiff hda. not been charged for the work, although he was at that time received an extra. 3d a hundred for clearing the refuse. Plaintiff had not cleaned up the mill at any time during the term of the agreement. The output was about . 6000 .to 7000 feet, a day, but plaintiff appeared to have difficulty in ing good men. The sawdust was collected by-a creeper, and was then elev'uted into a water trousdi and washed 'away. About 100 tons of ref nee was

dragged out from under the mill floor,

' where it had accumulated during plaintiff’s time. The refuse-had colrjected to such an extent as to inter- •' fere with the working ef pulleys,

' Jielts, and oil-wells, and the mill mawas in danger of being damaged. Since .the company had taken - 4>ver the mill and worked it the out--'Vut averaged about 12,000 feet a day. ’/it was plaintiff’s duty under the ’ agreement to have cleaned the mill

v up before he terminated the contract. fi’laintiff was a good sawyer, and there had been no complaints regarding his

'.-managerahip other than the clearing of refuse. Witness «aid that he was ■..' the company’s representative referred 'to in; the agreement. Forty feet of belting had been damaged through the ' negligence of plaintiff ill not keeping the refuse clear. A' vertical saw had

, been broken by an act of carelessness # in pushing the travelling bench on to ' . h. The action of plaintiff in allowing maindriving belt to become loose

< daused the belt to come off. It fell on to the main shaft, and before the cnv gine could be stopped the belt got wound round the main shaft and smashed a 24in cost-iron pulley to * pieces. He had told plaintiff previously that he was driving with the belt too slack. The cost of a new pulley was about £l6 to £2O. The logImuling machine was a new one when plaintiff took over, but the lubricating of the machine was not attended, to. although plaintiff’s attention had been drawn to the fact. Finally the company had been compelled to put a man on to attend to the matter, and ''it was found that a new brass sleeve was necessary for the machine. Two spindles which held the roller in position had been damaged .through negligence. Plaintiff had been handed a list of the broken and damaged machinery prior to his leaving the

company, and also a statement show--Z2* ing the amount paid by the company -> for clearing the refuse. Plaintiff had ■‘made about £BOO nett in nine months, according to the figures shown in the ■ company’s books. Witness said that ■ he the full authority of the. com- '■ pany for everything done. To Mr Ciendon witness tsaid that

his experience of sawmilling was not a * very ■ extensive, although he had in the Waitekauri sawmill 1/iTsome years ago. The erection of the company’s mill had been done largely ■'■ under plaintiff’s guidance. When the contract between the plaintiff and the * company expired plaintiff was placed * on a wages basis. A lengthy examination of witness was proceeded with concerning the ' items shown in the counter-claim. The size of the mill was about l'soft ■ bv 100 ft. Witness said that plaintiff worked 'A -about 11 hours a day, and was a gen- & nine toiler, but much ofthe work dime - by plaintiff was because he was work-

ing short-handed in the mill. It was not true that plaintiff had been paid the extra 3d a hundred because of an altercation between the log-hauler and witness causing plaintiff to take delivery of the logs at. the skids. The rise had been paid at the request of plaintiff so ap to enable him to pay for the removal of the debris,

To His Worship witness said, that so long as the debris did not accumulate to the extent of interferring with the etlicient running of the mill it was not necessary to remove it completely.

pany as a titter and repairer, said pany as a fitter and repaiier, said that he had had considerable experience with sawmill machinery. He de'ailed at length how the machinery had been damaged, and alleged that negligence was the cause.

In reply to Mr Clendon witness said that he had done the blacksmithing work for the company during the erection of the mill, and was istill employed by the company. Edward Thompson, bush manager for the company, said that his duties kept him fully occupied in the bush, and he had no authority at the mill during the .time plaintiff was running it. He detailed the state in which plaintiff had left the mill. To Mr Clendon witness said that had the debris been moved by plaintiff each week there would have been no congestion or broken machinery. The amount claimed from the plaintiff (£75) f° r removing the debris from under the mill was very reasonable 1 , and only included actual wages paid for the work. Thomas G. R. Culp.au, the company s clerk, said that he kept all accounts and made and received all payments. The various items in the counterclaim were explained in detail by the witness, as also was the system of calculating the wages and overtime paid to the men. Replying to Mr Clendon witness denied that the company had only decided to claim against the plaintiff in February of this year. He had had instructions to charge plaintiff with the broken pulley and saw in June last. Several statements had been supplied. In opening for the defence Mi Clendon said that plaintiff’s claim wan really one for wages, and Tie would ask His Worship to consider that fact in the event of making any deductions, for repairs and wage's for removal of debris. He also pointed out that there had been little conclusive evidence that the amounts claimed wore due for breakages caused by negligence, and contended that the claim of £75 for the removal bf debris wa.s an unjust one, and had no bearing no what was, in the mill itself. Percy Manning, plaintiff, said that he had had 28 years’ experience of isawmilling. During his time as contractor the mill had .been kept reasonably clean. The mill had been cleared of debris at least oncel a week up to within a couple of months of the teimination of the contract. Owing to not having a head sawyer he had taken on the work himself, and it was during that time that the cleaning had possibly gone back a little. The mill was working satisfactorily, on the evening of December 20, when he finished up. The 3d a hundred increase had been paid because of an altercation with the winchman, who had not. kept the supply of logs up at the skids. When the company was approached Mr Joachin had paid the extra amount so that he might use the increase in helping to defray the expense of bringing logs a distance ot about 8 chains instead of having them delivered at the breaking-down bench. The various items shown in the counter-claim were examined separately, and plaintiff denied liability for the breakages, which he claimed were not due to negligence on the part of himself or his men. He contended that the machinery had bean carefully and reasonably looked after. To Mr Bceche plaintiff said that he had frequently employed men on Saturday afternoons to remove sawdust and slabs from inside the mill, and also underneath it. The mill had been kept up to a standard that ensured a satisfactory- forking basis throughout, his agreement with the company. He denied having done well out of the contract, and had made nothing like £BOO while with the company.

In summing up the Magistrate gave judgment for plaintiff on the claim •of £B3 16s lid, with costs £9 3s. in dealing with the counter-claim the Magistrate said that he was satisfied that the mill had been left in an unsatisfactory condition by the plaintiff, and it was difficult to define exactly what was meant by clearing the In regard to the amounts claimed for alleged damage to the machinery, .there! was no doubt that negligence had occurred, either by the plaintiff or his workmen, and the company was entitled to i ecover on those counts. Judgment would be given for the defendant company for a total amount of £65, plus costs £6 18s 4d.