PATUMAHOE.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 7, Issue 376, 17 May 1918, Page 1

PATUMAHOE.

SHARE-MILKING DISPUTE ARBITRATION AWARD As the outcome of arbitration proceedings conducted at the Pukekohe Courthouse on April 19th last in connection with the claim by Mr H. C. Hay, of Patumahoe, against Mr Joseph Henry, also of Patumahoe, for £B9 10s Bil for one-third share of deferred payment for cream made Inst season to Mr Henry by the N.Z Dairy Association and also for £2 fis 9d one-third share of bacon supplied to a bacon factory, the award of the umpire (Mr W. J. King, of Waiuku) has now been issued, Mr R. T. Reid and Mr H. IMI having at the hearing acted as arbitrators for Me.-sr« Hay and Henry respectively, and the Counsel appearing being Mr A. Hanna for Mr Hay and Mr J. G Haddow for Mr Henry

In his finding, Mr King states that for many years it has been the invariable practice of tho N Z Dairy Association to pay its suppliers for their cream by means of a cheque each month and a further final cheque at the end of the season, commonly called i a "bonus." The question at issue between the parties depended upon whether or not the amount of the final cheque or bonus should lie included in the amount in which the milker was entitled to share. Tho evidence showed that the methods of computing the final cheque had been recently changed, that the cheque in respect of the year under consideration owing to reasons arising out of the war was greater than usual, and that the cheques received each month were consequently a smaller fraction of the total price of tho cream than the corresponding cheques of previous years. It was also shown that by an oversight the Dairy Association paid out a smaller cheque during one month than the Directors really intended should be paid. Those facts showed that if the milker was to receive a fixed fraction of tie cheque paid from month to month and was not to participate in the final cheque his remuneration was dependent upon the decision of the Directors of the Dairy Association as to how much should be paid for cream each month and how much retained till the final payment —a matter entirely outside the control of tho parties. Such an agreement would not commend itself to most men as a reasonable one. However, in that case the rights of the parties were determined by the words oi' their agreement. The words used in the agreement were "monthly milk cheques" and tlif long-standing practice of the Dairy Associa! ion to pay out a final or bonus cheque each year must have been within the knowledge of the parties. The word "monthly" seem°d to be used in the agreement expressly to distinguish the cheques paid our month to month front ihe final or b'.dius cheque. The ment neither said nor implied that the milker was to receive one third of all moneys received for the sale of all butter-fat. Another ground for interpreting the agreement as he (Mr King) had interpreted it was that the parties themselves had so interpret* d it. The share-milker admitted in evidence that he made a claim upon the employer at the end of the first milking season under the agreement of July lid-'), for a sli ire of the bonus cheque for the preceding year and that payment of the same was definitely refused bv ihe employer and that subsequent to such definite refusal the milker and employer entered into an agreement for the extension of the term of the original agreement of July l'.bh, 191 ft, without making any alteration concerning the remuneration of the milker. Tho milker thereby assented to the employer's interpretation of the agreement. \V ith respect to the claim for i'2 (is '.id being put mono) s received by the employer from the Bacon Company, who received the pigs, the evidence mule it clear that that money was receded by the employer as a sharehuld r m the Bacon Company by way . i bonus or dividend on his share.- a d m.t by virtue of his having t-old the to the Bacon Company. II" (Mr King therefore declared iha r Mr Iluy.s claim for £Bl* ltis Nd ami abo for £ J 'is '.'il wholly failed and he ordered him to pay to Mr H riry the costs of tho dispute, which he detailed and fixtd at£li> .'ss, less the sum of i> costs of an adjournment nwe-MUtfd in the first instant e by tho employer's failure to attend v\ hcli lie ordered Mr H«my to pay, leaving a balance of i'lo Ms pa)able I>y M r Hay.