ROBINSON V. VICTORIAN RAILWAYS COMMISSIONERS 15/1925

we

- _V__THR VICTORIAN RALLWAYS COMMISSTONTRG,

tk " ROBINSON & Q) 8 . RATUMAYS +

duagment. Knox C.0.

The question in this case turns on tho construction of an agreement made between the Respondents and certain branches of the Coal & Shale Employees Federation for the purpose of regulating the conditions of employment of perecns workin§ in. the VYonthagei Ccal mines.

By clause 15 of that agreement it is provided that the minimun wage for efficient miners employed as coal hewers or brushers shall be 19/7 per shift.

Clause 9 of the agreement under the heading "Dirt Scale"

provides by sub-clause (a) that certain refuse ocourring in the seam p.

2.

is to be paid for at specifiied rates, by sub-clause (b) for payment for Girt ordered to be filled out, by sub-clevse(c) that the maxinum quantity of dirt or foreign mutter ellowed in a skip without a fine

Bhall be 17 lbs

that af that quantity be exceeded a fine of 34. for each 7 lbs in excess shall be imposed aud by sub-clause (4) for the method cf payment where 4 small band of coal coours in or under & dirt seam.

The question at issue is whether the respondents are entitled to make deductions under clause 9(c) of the a8reement from

the amount peyable to a miner if the effect of such deduction ie to

reduce the nett amount payable to him below 19/7 ker shift.

3.

¢ The Supreme Court by majority - faut & MannJJ ; Weigeull J.

digsenting - upheld the contention of the

I a&ree in the conolusicn reached by Weigeall J. and in the

reagoning by which he supported that conclusion. He said " For the : plaintiffs 1t was contended that these deductions are syecified by clause 9 as factors which shall cr may operate in ascertaining the workers! wage, and that, thougSh in that olause cdlled "fines" or "penalties" they are not such in any real sense, and are not enforce- able or ogerative otherwise than as elements in ascertaining the wage earned. In my view this contention is correct. In the light of she evicence biven at the trial the general effect of the avreement in question seems to me éo be as follows - The wate sarned by such ucrkers as the plaintiffs in respect of each skip loaded by them is to be a aum to be calculated at the rates fixed by the agreement on the weight of the leaded skip, but to be ainished to the extent speo-