FREEZING WORKERS.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 293, 11 December 1929, Page 11

FREEZING WORKERS.

INTERRETATION OF AWARD.

£20 PENALTY ASKED FOR.

APPLICATION TO COURRT.

The interpretation of a section of the freezing workers' award was involved in a claim made in the Arbitration Court yesterday by the Auckland Abattoir Assistants and Freezing Works Employees' Union against W. R. I'letcher (N.Z.), Limited. The case by agreement of the parties had been removed from the Magistrate's Court. It was alleged by plaintiffs that defendants had failed to pay a slaughterman's assistant, Alfred Hill, a minimum average wage of not less than 8/ a day in each week from April 4 to April 24, during which time he was on the pay-sheet. A penalty of £20 was claimed. The facts of the case were that Hill was paid the award rate from April 4 to 17, and then C. E. Jamieson started a contract at the works, and engaged him as a slaughterhouse assistant. Hill was paid the award rate for the balance of the period in dispute. During that time he also worked a total of 4$ hours in '•railing out" beef for the defendant. For this he was paid 11/6. The Court was asked to determine whether the "railing out" came under the clause of the Act requiring payment of the minimum of 8/ a day for a week, which, in any case he had received from the contractor, who was his principal employer during the period. On behalf of the company, Mr. Ziman submitted that the object of the award was to secure for the worker a minimum wage, hut not to duplicate it. Advancing the union's claim, Mr. Tuck said the chief issue was the maintenance of the rights which had been defined by the Court in the past. The Court had previously given a decision on the point raised, and that decision concerned the same men involved in the present applicption. A revision was not warranted, is no fresh information had been brought forward. Mr. Ziman said that reconsideration of the matter was asked on the ground that the Court had not been fully informed on the previous occasion. The facts had not been sufficiently investinor the law fully pone into. The Court reserved its decision.