AWARD BREACHES

Waikato Times, Volume 122, Issue 20497, 13 May 1938, Page 3

AWARD BREACHES

BENZINE CONTRACTORS INADEQUATE WAGES PAID NOT GENUINE AGREEMENTS (By Telegraph.—Press Association) WELLINGTON. Thursday A ruling that defendant had committed breaches of the Dominion Motor Mechanics’ Award was given by Mr Justice U’Regan in the case, the Inspector of Awards at Napier against Anderson and Hansen, Limited, of Napier, heard in the Arbitration Court. ! PlaintifT sought to recover £lO penalty in each case, alleging that defendants had on each of two occasions combined with other named persons to defeat the provisions of the award by entering into arrangements for tlie sale of benzine and oil at the premises of the other persons with the result that these persons received less than the wages prescribed by the award. The defence contended that each contractor was independent and submitted that the inspector must prove that there was intention to defeat the award and that the contractor in each was a worker. Mr Justice O’Regan. concluding his judgment, said it would be noticed ; that in each case quoted where the defendants had been successful the contract was either for a definite period or for the performance of work specified and limited. That characterr istic was strong evidence of a genuine i contract. The indeflniteness was ; strong evidence against defendant. Question of Intention In the actions brought by the in- | spector there were certain undeniable features, namely, that the contract was . and purported to be for mere tenancy ;at will, that the tenant might buy materials only from defendants, and that the properly in goods did not pass until payment actually had been made. These were three facts strongly indicative that the agreements were not genuine and the strongest in that direction was the : fact that the tenancy was one at the ; will of defendantsi The intention could be inferred only ; from tlie facts, said His Honour, and ! the inspector had proved the facts • compatible only with an infraction of I section three of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Even supposing, however, this was putting the position too strongly, it was clear that the onus of proof was on the defendants and that had not been discharged. No penalty was imposed, the conviction being recorded in the hope that the publicity of these proceedings would prevent a repetition of the offence.