FACTORY WAGES.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 57, Issue 172, 4 May 1937, Page 7

FACTORY WAGES.

QUESTION OF MINIMUM.

DECISION IN TEST CASE.

(Per Press Association.;

PALMERSTON N., May 3

Reserved judgment in a case of importance under the labour laws was given by Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., the case being a test brought by the Department of Labour against the Manawatu Knitting Mills, Ltd. It was submitted for the defence at the hearing that if tho department’s contention were upheld the industry would be called on to bear an additional burden of costs never contemplated. Tho defendant w r as charged with employing a person with more than three years’ factory experience for the week ended January) 15, and failing to pay not less than £2. It was claimed that this was a breach of the Factories Act as amended in 1936.

The facts were not in dispute. The employee was paid £2 5s a week. She lost one day’s employment through no fault of her own, but on the instruction of her employers on account of temporary slackness of work in her department.' As a result, 9s, representing one day’s wages, were deducted, bringing tho wages for that week down to £1 16s. The Department claimed that Section 32 of tho Act made it an offence to reduce the weekly wage below £2.

Tho Magistrate’s judgment said: “No authority was quoted for this proposition, but it is contended that it is tho moaning of tho section.’’ He held that the working of the section was against such a construction, for the concluding words of sub-section (a) contemplated reductions by limiting the reductions from wages of hoys and women undoi 18 years to time lost through a woiker’s illness or default or on account of the temporary closing of the lactory for cleaning or repairing mnchinei y. I think all the section does is to fix the minimum rate of pay for a full week’s work,” says the judgment. “This is a guide to employers or tho Arbitration Court in fixing wages in an industry, on tho analogy of the basic wage fixed by tho Arbitration Court. The provision does not mean that a worker is entitled to tho minimum wage, irrespective of the work down by such a worker, but that the worker is to be paid for work dono at not less than the l ates fixed by the section. This view is supported by Section 14 of tho amending Act of 1936, providing for payment foi certain holidays. The charge, therefore, must be dismissed.”