A WAGES DISPUTE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIII, Issue 200, 23 August 1902, Page 6

A WAGES DISPUTE.

INTERESTING CASE BEFORE THE

ARBITRATION COURT,

(By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.,)

CHRISTCHURCH, this day. A curious point of law was argued by lawyers in the Arbitration Court yesterday. The case arose out of the award which was given by the then Mr. Justice Martin, an ex-president of the Court, which came into force on September 22, 1900. The case was brought up at the instance of the Canterbury Typographical Union, for whom Mr T. J. Joynt appeared, against Whitcombe & Tombs, the Lyttelton "Times" Company, the Christchurch "Press," and Messrs H. J. Weeks and Company, all these being represented by Mr G. Harper. Mr Joynt stated that the point was an exceedingly narrow one. The award stated that a week's work should consist of six days of eight hours each, the minimum rate of wages to be £3 a week for forty-eight hours. The employers between November last and July last had worked their establishments at forty-five hours a week, reducing the wages of the men accordingly. The employers claimed that they could work for as short a time as they chose, but it was obvious that the award was not made for either side, and that both must be bound by it If the employers did not make their men work for forty-eight hours a week they must still pay them £3 a week; if the men were to be subjected to the caprice of the employers it would be a disastrous state of affairs for them.

Mx Harper admitted the facts.. He had, however, to state that an arrangement had been come to whereby it was agreed to alter the hours from forty-eight to fortyfive. The award had not been broken.

Mr Joynt said that the agreement referred only to the half-holiday, and had nothing to do with the case.

Mr Harper dwelt upon the words "six days a week of eight hours." That, he said, was the limit approved by the award, and after it overtime must commence. The employers were hot bound to employ a worker for the whole of the forty-eight hours, or to find work for him. The employer was not forced to flad work, nor was the employee forced to work for th« forty-eight hours. The only object in putting the words In tHe award was to fix the maximum length of time an employer could expect his men to work for a certain wage before giving overtime.

His Honor, Mr Justice Cooper, president of the Court, said the difficulty arose owing to the fact that the Court had fixed the length of a week's work, arid had prescribed payment in a lump sum. In some awards an hourly wage was fixed, and then there was no ambiguity. If Mr Harper's contention was correct, the result would be that the employers might claim the right to put men on half-time, and pay them half-rates. On the other hand, the Union might say that it would alloTr men to work only half-time.' That would be a breach of the award. After further legal discussion Hla Honor said that he would hear the evidence, and if the contention of Mr Joynt in regard to the abstract question was affirmed, he would consider whether the parties should be punished for a breach ol the award. After hearing evidence His Honor reserved Judgment