The Dixon Case.

Waikato Argus, Volume XXIV, Issue 3751, 7 April 1908, Page 2

The Dixon Case.

By Telegraph.—Press Association. Auckland, Last Night. With a view to getting some light thrown on the case of Mr Dixon, of Drury, who has been imprisoned for refusing to pay back wages, in circumstances which have called forth the sympathy of his fellow-townsmen, a Press representative waited on Mr A. E. Skelton, who acted as counsel for the plaintiff in the lower Court proceedings. "The facts, so far as I can recollect, are these, said Mr Skelton. "My client was engaged by Mr Dixon as a carpenter on March 13, 1906, and worked for him on three jobs. The award relating to his employment fixed the minimum wages for a journeyman—and, of course, my client came under that designation at the rate of Is 3d per hour, equivalent to 10s per day of eight hours, and that award was binding on Dixon. The latter, by arrangement with my client, paid him at the rate of 7s per day, or 3s per day less than that prescribed by the award, and as neither of them had obtained a permit sanctioning this, they were duly cited before the Arbitration Court for committing a breach of the award— Dixon in that he employed a journeyman at less than the minimum wage without a permit, and my client in that he worked for less than the minimum wage without a permit. Dixon as fined £5 and costs, and the man he had employed 10s and costs. My client then took legal advice as to his right to recover the difference between the wages agreed upon and that stipulated in the award, and as a result proceedings were instituted against Dixon in the Magistrate's Court at Papakura. "The case came on for hearing before Mr H. W. Northcroft, S.M., on May 6, 1907. 1 appeared for the plaintiff. The defendant, on the other hand, conducted his own case, and gave evidence claiming that the plaintiff was an apprentice in his employ. He had left, and had reentered his employ again, and he (Dixon) considered him to be an apprentice, and therefore entitled to an apprentice's wages only. The plaintiff contended that when he re-entered defendant's employ he was a journeyman, having qualified as such, and was therefore entitled to a journeyman's wages. He relied for his claim upon the decision of Sir Robert Stout, Chief Justice, in the case of Rees v. Bailey and Co., which was heard in the Supreme Court, Wellington, in 1906. In this case the Chief Justice ruled that where an award has been made fixing the minimum rate of wages, and the provision in section 92 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1900, allowing a lower rate of wages to be accepted, has not been complied with, any contract by a workman with an employer, who is a party to an award, to work for less than the minimum wage is void, and the workman can recover the difference between the agreed wages he has received and the minimum fixed by the award. "The magistrate upheld the plaintiff's contention, and gave judgment for him for the sum of £2i 6s and costs. The defendant, at the hearing, signified his intention of appealing to the Supreme Court, and on May 15 forwarded formal notice to that effect to the Court and to me. I stayed proceedings on the judgment in order to give him every opportunity to prosecute his appeal, but he for reasons of his own, did not go on with it. The plaintiff decided to give defendant plenty of time in which to comply with the judgment, but as the latter showed no such intention, a judgment summons was issued against him, and he has called upon to answer this on November 4. The defendant admitted that he had had sufficient money several times over in which to pay the amount of judgment since it was made. He then declared his determination not to comply with it, whereupon the magistrate made an order for the payment of the amount forthwith, or indefault two months' imprisonment. "Even after that," concluded Mr Skelton, "we allowed defendant time in which to pay, but as he still neglected to do so a notice of the order made by the magistrate was served I upon him in February last. This, however, met with no response, and I last week we were obliged to take out I a warrant for his arrest, with the re- | suit that he is now ur.dergoing two | months' imprisonment in Mount Eden ! Gaol." Auckland, This Day. At a public meeting at Drury in ; connection with the Dixon case, the opinion was expressed that the magistrate's decision was faulty, and pend- : ing a re-hearing of the case Dixon i should be released.