ARBITRATION COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 470, 21 August 1909, Page 3

ARBITRATION COURT.

CONTRACT OR PIECEWORK? AN INTERPRETATION ASKED FOR. Some time ago the Labour Department asked for an interpretation of clause xi of the Flaxmill Award. This was asked for in connection with contracts let by Messrs Broad and Reeve, millers, of Oroua Bridge, to some of the men employed at their mill. The Union, which has all along denounced the contract, was represented before the court by counsel, their claim being that the system was merely piecework under another name and an attempt to evade the wages clause of the Award.

The Union and tne Labour Department were represented by Mr H. R. Cooper and Mr J. P. Innes appeared for the employers. The president of the Court, Mr Justice Sim, said no decision could be given by the Court, as it was not properly constituted, owing to the death of Mr Samuel Brown, the employers’ representative ; but the Court would hear the parties and express an opinion, and if necessary the matter could be again brought before the Court when it was properly constituted. THE UNION’S SIDE. Mr Cooper opened his case by stating that the contracts were invalid for three reasons: —(1) If the price under the scutching agreement worked out at less than the award rate, a breach of the award was committed ; (2) the stripping agreemement was a breach ol award, because it really provided for piecework, which was not allowed by the award ; (3) though the agreements were not piecework, a breach was committed if the rate ot wages under the contract worked out at less than the award wage. Mr Cooper contended that the agreements were not contracts but merely agreements for piecework, and that the workers under the agreements were really pieceworkers. His Honour said this was not so if the men were independent contractors, in which case the Court had no jurisdiction over them.

Mr Cooper said he would contend that the men were not independent contractors, and he quoted authorities on the definition of the word “contractor.” Several men signed the stripping agreement, but he would admit that probably the contractors secured the sole right to do the stripping and the employer could not put anyone else on to do the work. He quoted parts of the agreements to prove that the men were not independent contractors. They were subject to the control of the employers in that the employers had the right to suspend the contracts if the price of flax did not warrant their continuance, and if the contractor did not turn up to work the employer could put on a man at the contractor’s expense. These provisions and the one allowing for the cancellation of the contract if the contractor’s work was unsatisfactory were foreign to the idea of an independent contract. Mr Cooper said the agreement was merely an ordinary agreement of service in different language, and if it constituted an independent contract there was hardly any service which could not be similarly treated.

THE MILLERS’ VIEWS. Mr limes agreed that the case was one of the difference between piece work and contract, but he submitted that all the essentials of a contract were present. The agreement provided a fixed term for the completion of the work, the contractor did the whole of the specified work in the time given, the contractor was not bound to be on the work except as a superintendent, he had power to engage and dismiss workmen, the details of the work were not under the control of the employers, 75 per cent, of the contract price was allowed on progress payments and there were no fixed hours for the performance of the work. Mr Innes contended that the employer’s right of suspension did not necessarily give him control of the details of the work. The fact that the contract rate worked out a little less than the piece work rate should not be taken into consideration. The men would not have taken the contract unless they were of opinion that they could make more money. He cited authorities regarding the meaning of the word “ contractor,” and he contended that the agreement was a contract, because a fixed amount of work was mentioned.

Mr Cooper, replying, said there was no fixed amount of work mentioned in the agreement, because of the. employer’s power of suspension of work. No evidence was called and his Honour said he would take time to consider the matter,