CONTRACTS IN COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 915, 8 November 1910, Page 3

CONTRACTS IN COURT.

[Contributed.]

If evidence were required to show that the contract system is nothing more than a device to “get over” an award, it was amply shown forth in the S.M. Court at Palmerston on Monday last. A. Seifert and Co. were charged, at the instance of W. J. Culver, Inspector of Awards, with employing a man on piece-work without complying with the conditions of the award, in respect to having the rates agreed upon by the Employers Association and the Union. For the defence three witnesses gave evidence, and the cheerful irresponsibility of the first two of the trio in regard to the so-called contract was a cause of merriment to the whole court, and called forth astonished remonstrances from the Magistrate. The first witness readily identified the form of contract containing his signature along with four others. He then proceeded to tell how, during the time the “contract” was in progress he felt “crook,” “he kind 0’ had the asthma in the chest,” so offered to change jobs with one Chamberlain, at the latter’s suggestion. Asked if he consulted his lellow-coutractorauent the change, “Oh, no, I knew they wouldn’t mind.” Yes, he had mentioned to one of them that Chamberlain was taking his place but it didn’t matter to the others. He had told the manager the same thing and the manager said it would be alright. No, 2 witness was even better ; his astonishment at the S.M. asking if he minded Chamberlain taking No. x’s place was too funny, No he didn’t mind, it was nothing to him, as long as he (No. 2) did his work it didn’t matter what the others did. The S.M. here pointed out that it did matter, that as it was a contract they were all liable for the work being efficiently carried out, etc. This however, only produced an expression of amused pity at the S.M.’s ignorance, on the face of the witness. One could not help feeling that the witness was right, that “conti act” or no “contract” it did not matter to him what the others did. The S.M. remarked in convicting the defendant that the men if they were going to work those mills on contract must be given to understand that the contract was more than merely a method of “getting over” an award and that it laid obligations on the contractors of which they at present seemed to be unaware.