LATEST CASE

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 350, 11 October 1932, Page 6

LATEST CASE

MAMAKU MILL ■ SETTLEMENT ARRIVED AT IN CLAIM FOR WAGES ' INTERVE.NTION BY BENCH • A case which is of considerable interest to the sawmilling eommunity came before Mr. S. L. Paterson, S.M., yesterday in the Rotorua Court when John James Skjottrup claimed £3 13/4 the difference between the amount he had been paid and the award wages from Gamman and Co., sawmillers, j of Mamaku. There was a further claim for £25 damages for wrongful dismissal. After plaintiffs case had beeir-stat-ed by Mr. J. D. Davys and Mr. E. Roe was in the middle of his case for the defendant company the Magistrate intervened and stopped the case suggesting a settlement which was agreed to by both parties. The action was taken as a test case and involved 13 mill-workers. In opening, Mr. Davys said that plaintiff and 12 other men were ' employed at the mill at Mamaku. As the result of an aceident plaintiff had to find out the rate of pay he was receiving and wrote to the Inspector of Awards finding out that he was getting less than the award rate. The action was brought to obtain that difference. In addition damages were claimed since the men had been dismissed. The position was that in Mamaku the unemployment bureau was the post office q.nd it was customary for the mill to obtain hands through the bureau. These men were in "Morton's Fork" for if they did not take work at the mill they did not get relief work and in any case, at the rate paid at the mill, in some cases drew less money than they would have done on relief. Plaintiff's Story John James Skjottrup, a mill worker, said that as the result of an aceident he got in touch with the Labour Department at Wellington and was told that he was entitled to the difference between 10/- per day and the award rate of 15/6 per day less 10 per cent. His job was that of head "gooseman," and later was head "slabby" at 15/- per day less 10 p'er cent. This was during August and September. He had received 1/3 per hour instead of 1/81. The claim was for the difference. A further 12 men who were affected asked him to claim on their behalf . . Gamman's were aware of the fact that he was making a claim. The manager's brother came to see him and after abusing him said "You will force us to pay you a few bob, but you can't force us to give you a job." He also said, "You'll all get the sack, and if I had my way I'd sack the lot of you and put on a new gang to-mor-row." The manager's brother was yard foreman. Next day (Thursday) a Mr. Hall came along and told him to finish up the next night. He had said, "There is a letter up in the office and everyone who signed it will finish too." All 13 men were put off. In other mills the award rate was being paid. It also affected some of the 13 men who were then getting £1 per week, less than they would get on relief work. He had not been asked to go back to work but had heard rumours that he could do so. Did Not Know Rate To Mr. Roe witness said that he had long experience in timber mills. He was not there when the mill was closed down, and could not say if the men had asked to be put on at reduced wages. When witness started in April there was no mention of wages and he did not know the rate until he got his first pay on May 5, the day after Mr. Gamman died, and things were upset. On May 9 witness had an aceident. He had worked subsequently at 10/- per day under mstructions from the Inspector of Factories who told him to earry on and instruct a firm of solicitors to take action. As far as witness could see Gamman's were fairly full of orders. At this stage the Bench intervened stating that whilst the award was in force the employer must pay the award wages. On the other hand plaintiff had admitted getting 24 hours notice. There seemed to be no reason to go any further. The case would be adjourned to next court day to allow the parties to come to agreement. ■I".' T'l"" 1'. 1 'L! *