AN INTERESTING CASE.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXII, Issue 8845, 22 June 1907, Page 2

AN INTERESTING CASE.

■' Per Press Association. Dunedin, June 21. Mr Justice Williams gave judgment to-day in the case of Edwards v. Timaru Milling Company, heard before him at Timaru. ' Plaintiff (Raymond Charles Edwards) was employed by defendant company as hehd miller from the end of 1903 to May, 1906, at £5 a week. After leaving this employment, plaintiff, having’ it revealed to him that ho came under the provisions of the Factories Act, 1901, and that there was an award of the Arbitration Court binding on himself and [defendant company, under both of which he was entitled to payment for overtime, brought an action for £2OO for overtime.

His Honor said plaintiff had not ; brought himself under the award, which was never intended ,to [apply to a head miller. As to his claim, so far as it 1 rested with the Factories Act, his Honor said L..11S plaintiff, whom he could properly term a working manager, did not come within section 31 of the Act relating to'overtime, coming within the definition of “occupier" and not that cf “ employee.” His Honor pointed out that persons included in the term “ occupier” are representative of the owner and master, and throughout the Factories Act distinction was made between the occupier and a person employed, though an occupier might be a person employed in a house that ho was in. There was honest ignorance on both sides, and had plaintiff’s occupation been such as to entitle him to overtime, that agreement would be void. Sapposiugho were an “ employee ” he would receive ordinary remuneration with overtime at not loss than a fourth as much again as the ordinary rate. He would have been engaged and paid by the owner of the factory. His Honor thought that the section of the Act relating to payment for overtime ’ did not apply to such, and said the agreement was that plaintiff was to receive £5 per week to cover overtime, that agreement being made with no intention to evade the Act. But at second miller’s pay (£2 12s a week) and on that basis or even at £3 a week with overtime, plaintiff had already received more money, having received £5 a week for 138 weeks. From his point of view defendants were entitled to judgment, and his Honor gave judgment for defendants.