APPRENTICES' PAY.

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 65, 17 March 1934, Page 19

APPRENTICES' PAY.

DRESSMAKING TRADE CANTERBURY FIRM'S APPEAL TEN PER CENT CUT ALLOWED (By. Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, this clay. The Court of Appeal was to-day con side ring a question stated for its opinio! by Mr. JusticQ Frazer, of the Court o Arbitration, concerning the miiiimun wage payable to dressmaking appren tices under the Factories Act, 19-1 1922. In July, 1933, the Christcliurch Dres and Mantleniakers' Union sued J. Hal lantyne and Co., Ltd., for a penalty o £10, on the ground that the defendant had paid their apprentices £1 7/ a weel instead of £1 10/ a week, the niininnin rate fixed by award and by the Fac tories Act, 1921-1922. The defendants claimed that the; were entitled to deduct 10 per cent fron the award rate of £1 10/ per week b< virtue of the general order of the Arbi tration Court, 1931, reducing all award by 10 per cent. Mr. E. D. Moslev, S.M.. held in tin Magistrate's Court that the general K per cent reduction did not apply t( minimum wages, which were fixed b; statutes such as tho Factories Act an< gave, judgment in favour of the unioi for 10/ and costs. Ballantyne and Co. appealed agains this decision on a point of law to tin Court of Arbitration, and the appea was referred by that Court for the opin ion of the Court of Appeal. Counsel for appellant ware Mr. 11. A Young, and Mr. H. J. Bishop, and for til respondent Mr. K. G. Archer. Many Workers Concerned. Opening the case for the appellant Mr. Young stated that the questioi before the Court was one of considerabl importance, as it directly concerned i very largo number of factory workers ii tho Dominion. Since the passing of tli Arbitration Amendment Act, 1932, fev awards which had expired had beei renewed, and both employers and em ployees had had to refer to provision of the Factories Act for minimum rate of wages payable in factories. In tli present caso the award rate was 15/ i week during tho first six months, risiuj at tho end of three years to £2 2/1 i week. The Factories Act provided for a mini mum of 10/ a week for the first year witji annual increments of 5/ until i wage of 30/ a week was reached, J. hi employees in the present case had beei engaged under the terms of the award a a rate of 15/ a week. Counsel contendei that so long as the annual wage paid b; tho appellant and other factory owner; was not lower than the minimum pre scribed by the Factories Act, the appel hint was not required to increase tin weekly wage by annual increments of 5/ The respondent union contended tha whatever was the wage at which a fac tory employee commenced work, tin factory owner was required by statuti to increase this wage every year by ai a,niount of 5/ weekly until a wage of 30, a week was reached. " Mr. Archer, for the union, stated tlia tho pr<ictic(s...fqr,. which the union was striving in the present appeal had beei observed by the Court of Arbitratioi over the whole of the last dceade. Tin Arbitration Court had always held tlia wages should bo increased caeh year bj a (felinitc annual increment being addei to tho wage at which an employee com menced work. Counsel submitted lega argument to show that the i actoi ie; Act, 1921-22, supported this contention Judgment for Appellant. The Court did not call upon counse for the appellant to reply. Giving judgment for the appellant, tin Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, statei that the Factories Act provided only si minimum rate of wages, and that undei this rate the employees concerned woulc be entitled in their fourth year to 25/ a, week. Tlicy were being paid in accord anco with tho award at the rate of 30/ a week, less the 10 per cent reducuoi applying to all awards. As this amount was not less than the minimum provide* by tho Factories Act, the wage was liable to tho 10 per cent deduction claimet by the appellant. Tho other members of tho Court, Mr Justice Hcrdman, Mr. Justice Blair, am Mr. Justice Kennedy, concurred in tint decision.