THE HIRE OF THE LABORER.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 226, 24 November 1888, Page 2

THE HIRE OF THE LABORER.

A case of considerable importance to workmen engaged on contracts came before Mr Booth on Thursday. The facts of the case were virtually undisputed. One Sargent (with another man who subsequently withdrew) took a contract to fall some bush on the property of Mr Reynolds, at Mangaheia, near

Tologa Bay. This contract, as in the majority of similar cases, was taken at far too low a price. The contractor had to seek assistance in the shape of stores and advances, which he received from Graham, Pitt and Bennett upon making over to them all the contract moneys. It may be imagined that at the completion of the contract someone would have to suffer. It happened that in order to complete the contract some ninety pounds wages were incurred to workmen who are as yet unpaid. Mr Bennett says he knew these men were about to proceed for their wages, and he determined to make himself safe. The whole thing was a case of diamond cut diamond; someone had to lose—the question was who ? Mr Bennett was evidently under the impression that if he got the money the workmen would not be able to proceed under “ The Workmen’s Wages Act, 1884,” which enables a workman to attach any contract moneys which may remain in the hands of the contractor’s employer. The Magistrate, however, ruled differently, and based his decision on section 14 of the Act, which makes wages a preferential claim on all moneys coming to a contractor. The effect of the decision (which is still liable to be appealed from) is to give to the laborer the price of his labor, and must be hailed with satisfaction by all those laborers who are working under contractors. From the cases quoted it appears that there is already a decision to the effect that a contractor cannot defraud his workmen by assigning the contract. In that case, however, the money had not been parted with. The present decision is still stronger, as it holds that anyone letting a contract, and upon which wages are due, pays away the money at his own risk. That this is right and just must be apparent to all parties. The fair honest wage of daily toil which really completes the work, should never be allowed to be menaced by the rights of any third person, however strong such rights may be. The third party goes into the thing with his eyes wide open; he knows, or should know, the terms of the contract, and whether it is likely to pay or not. The poor laborer can only work to the best of his ability and trust to the contractor’s honesty. Labor has many enemies to contend with, but in New Zealand it has at least one safeguard. We should, however, like to see the procedure simplified. In this case a week had to be expended in suing Sargent, and another one in suing Reynolds There was no dispute as to the amount; it was simply as to whether the contractor was liable.