IMPORTANT TEST CASE

Waikato Times, Volume 121, Issue 20284, 28 August 1937, Page 9

IMPORTANT TEST CASE

WAGE-RATES OF DRIVERS EFFECT OF FINANCE ACT, 1936 SUPREME COURT HEARING Intrloate and Important points of law, Involving the Interpretation of portion of the Finance Aot, 1936, were raised In the Supreme Court, Hamilton, yesterday afternoon, before Mr Justioe Callan, when Robert Patrick Anderson, Inspector of Awards, on behalf of Patrick Coyle, claimed from Robert Andrews, trading as Andrews and Sons, carriers and contractors, of Te Awamutu, £3l 17s, representing the difference between wages paid to Coyle by defendant between July 1 and December 19, 1936, and those ■which plaintiff alleged should have been paid by defendant under the Northern Industrial District Motor and Horse Drivers’ Award of 1926. Plaintiff was represented by the Crown Solicitor, Mr H. T. Gillies, and defendant by Messrs L. P. Leary and L. Alderton. It was stated by defending counsel that the case was In the nature of a test case and that a number of claims pending under Section 16 of the Finance Act, 1936, would be affected by the decision of the Court. It was also stated by one witness that In the northern Industrial district alone some £BOOO was at stake on the action, while the amount involved throughout the Dominion was in the vicinity of £15,000. Authoritative Settlement Necessary The case was originally heard In the Magistrate’s Court at Te Awamutu in June last, but was removed by consent to the Supreme Court for determination on the ground that important and intricate principles of law were Involved which should be definitely ind authoritatively settled In tho Supreme Court. The principles Involved, It was stated, covered many trades and awards. Defendant admitted that Coyle was employed by him as a driver of a motor vehicle at a wage of £3 10s a week, and not £4 16s a week as provided for by the award mentioned, but It was contended for defendant that he was not bound by that award. It was contended for the Labour Department that the point at Issue was whether all employers engaged in an Industry as from the date of operation of the Finance Act, 1936, were required to pay the rates provided in an award which had expired before the Act oame Into force and which had been in force in 1931, Irrespective of whether any employers commenced in business prior to the making of that award or were cited as parties to it, or became subsequent parties to it. Legal argument was submitted by Mr Leary, who contended that the case was more properly covered by Seotlon 17 of the Act than by Section 16. He admitted the validity of the award, but not Its application to defendant. Counsel submitted that the Act aimed at restoring cuts, not increasing wages. Defendant had never made a out. lar. C. Howard, assistant secretary to the Auckland Employers' Association, gave evidence as to the awards in existence in 1931 and in 1936 afTecting drivers, and gave estimates of the amounts in wages increments Involved In the action. The only award dealing with carriers in force In 1931, stated witness, was the general award of 1926. " Declared Void ” Supplementary submissions were made by Mr Alderton, who contended that there was no valid award affecting the driving Industry. If there had been one. It had been declared void by the recent Court of Appeal decision. Replying to the arguments of the defence, Mr Gillies dealt with the interpretation of the word “Industry” and the nature of Section 16 of the Act, which he contended was a restrictive section. The 1926 award was a general award, he contended. It was cancelled In 1933, hut had bee,n current and In force in Te Awamutu in 1931. He submitted that carrying was an Industry within the meaning of the Act. His Honour stated that “ vocational ” , awards had been declared without * legal existence by the Court of Appeal, but It had been stated that validating legislation was pending. At the request of Mr Leary, however, His Honour intimated that he would give a decision as soon as possible. Judgment was reserved by His Honour, and at the conclusion of the bearing the Court was adjourned mill Monday.