FLAXMILL BOARD CHARGES.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 1613, 21 September 1916, Page 2

FLAXMILL BOARD CHARGES.

ALLEGED BREACH OF AWARD. At the Palmerston North AlagI istrate’s Court on Tuesday morning, (i Mr J. W. Poynton, S.AL, delivered reserved judgment in the case Alanawatu FJaxmills industrial I nion of \\ orkers v. F. S. Easton and C. Collyer, a claim for £lO for aii alleged breach of the award in that the defendants charged the mill 0 employee's at Easton’s mill IDs per week for hoard, contrary to the pro--0 visions of clause 7of the award. (> His Worship’s judgment was as follows; In this ease the defendants are sued for a breach of the Wellington District Flaxmills Eiu- * ployees’ Award hy charging- llaxniill workers lt)s per week instead of 17s (id, the award for hoard. The ’ clause in the award which relates to (diarging for hoard says:‘“Where hoard is provided for workers the ' food shall he sullieient in quantity - and of good quality, and the charge ’ therefor, whether hoard shall he 1 provided directly hy the employer 1 or hy any person under contract ; with him, shall not exceed 17s (id per week, nor shall any additional charge he made hy way of rent for use of buildings, payment for use of cooking utensils, or otherwise howsoever.” One of the defendants is (he employer and the other provides flic hoard. According .to the evidence of both defendants the employer gets no benefit or profit from the supply of food or lodgings to the men, and there is no contract or understanding between defendants as to these sup]dies. The employer gets from the boardinghouse-keeper 5s per week as rent for the use of the buildings, but he can purchase food supplies where he likes and the employer gels no commission on the value of the goods supplied to him hy tradesmen. Before raising the charge for board from 17s (id to 19s he did not consult the employer, who has no control over him whatever. On these points, which I must accept us proved, 1 cannot Jind that there has been a breach of the award. It applies only to eases where board is supplied by the employer or someone under a contract with him to do so. In the present ease the boardinghouse-keeper is in exactly the same position as any other private person. He can charge his hoarders what he likes, or rather, as much as they are willing to pay. Payment by him of rent for the use of the boardinghouse does -not, of course, constitute a eontractorial relationship with the employer to supply board. Judgment will be for defendants with costs. Mr Guy, instructed by Messrs O’Regan and Dickson, appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr limes for defendants. In leply to Mr Guy, his Worship said he would fix securities for appeal at £G Vs.