COURT OF APPEAL HEARING

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 68, Issue 138, 23 March 1948, Page 5

COURT OF APPEAL HEARING

PROCEEDINGS UNDER HOLIDAYS ACT (P.A.) WELLINGTON, March 22. The Court of Appeal to-day began hearing proceedings taken out by the New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Industrial Union against the New Zealand Waterside Employers’ Associa< tion, the Wellington Harbour Board and the Waterfront Industry Commission. to determine the date on which waterside workers became entitled to their first annual holidays under the Annual Holidays Act, 1944. The Annual Holidays Act, 1944, provides that the employment of workers :t’or the purpose of qualifying for their holidays should be deemed to begin on December 1, 1943. It also provides that the Minister of Labour should approve the conditions upon which workers employed on the waterfront should be entitled to their annual holidays. On July 24, 1944, the Minister of Labour made an order providing that the starting date of employment of waterside workers for holiday purposes should he the first day of the . pay week nearest August 1, 1944. The question which the court is considering is whether waterside workers should he entitled to count their employment from December 1 1, 1943, for the computation of their holidays instead of from August 1, 1944, as provided in the Minister’s order. Removed For Argument

These proceedings originally came before the Chief Justice (the lit. Hon. Sir Humphrey O’Leary) in Wellington on December 13, 1947, and were then removed by him to the Court of Appeal for argument and consideration. On the Bench are Sir Humphrey, Mr Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Lin lay and Mr Justice Gresson. Mr M. J. Gresson and Mr T. A. Gresson (Christchurch) .are appearing for the pnion, Mr J. L. B. Stevenson (Wellington) for the Employers’ Association and tire Wellington Harbour Board, and Mr T. P. Cleary {Wellington) for the Commission. Mr T. A. Gresson, opening the case for the union, said the question before the court was an important one affecting the whole waterside industry, and hence indirectly affecting all employers and employees. In its financial aspect alone it involved more than £30,000. and it indirectly involved the the validity or otherwise of the order of the Minister of Labour of July 24, 1944.

Argument for Union

Briefly put, tlxe argument for tire union was that the Minister's order was not an order made for the purpose of fixing a date for beginning computation of the holiday period, but was made for internal administrative purposes only, and was not intended to affect the rights to holidays acquir ed by watersiders by virtue of their labours between December 1, 1943, and July 1, 1944. If the Court considered that it was intended to the contrary, then the order could not stand because of the fixation of the dale of starting by the Act itself. Mr Gresson also said that originally the Railways Department had been a party to the proceedings, hut it did not intend 1o take any part in the argument before the court and would accept the judgment of the court. The hearing conlinued Ibis afternoon, and was adjourned until tomorrow.