CLAIMS ALLOWED.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIX, Issue 208, 3 September 1938, Page 18

CLAIMS ALLOWED.

RATIONING WORK. PAY FOR STAND-DOWN WEEKS ACTION BT EMPLOYEES, (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) DUNEDIN, Friday. Proceedings arising out of the rationing of work by a city firm during a slack period last year occupied the Supreme Court to-day. The case was one in which employees of Smith and Smith, Limited, claimed a total of £209 12/ from the company, being the difference between the award wages due to them for the period May 24 to September 13, and the amount actually paid as a result of the rationing system. The Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, presided, Mr. I. B. Stevenson appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr. A. C. Stephens for the defendant company. Mr. Stevenson said there was a series of 15 claims by 15 employees of the defendants. Under the rationing system the men worked for two weeks and stood down for one during the period in question. In the sum claimed allowance had been made for earnings derived from other forms of employment secured during the stand-down week.

After hearing legal argument his Honor said that having come to a clear opinion on the matter, there was no advantage to be gained by delaying delivery of his judgment. Intention of Award. It was clear that what the awards under which the men were working intended was continuous employment. It was quite competent, however, for the company to terminate, by giving not fewer than seven days' notice, the agreement of employment with as many of its men as it could not find work for by reason of altered trading conditions. The company nevertheless did not adopt that course. He could quite understand why it hesitated to dispense altogether with the services of some of its employees, and in this connection he would like to emphasise that the case involved no moral obloquy at all as far as the company was concerned. It had acted for the best for itself and its employees. He was satisfied that there was no ground for holding that there was between employer and employees any agreement for variation of the contract of employment for which the respective awards provided. Indeed, had the parties purported to vary the terms of employment, the agreement would have had no validity, as it would have meant acceptance of less than the provisions of the awards. It was also impossible to contend that the company had determined the employment of the plaintiffs in May. "Acted in Good Faith." "The company acted in perfect good faith," said his Hpnor, "but in my opinion it also acttsfl in contravention of the implications, although not the express provisions, of the awards. On the subject of fault of employers with respect to the discontinuance of employment, the provisions of awards must be interpreted in a non-technical sense. In a broad sense it was due to the fault of the employer that the men were not kept at work, inasmuch as the company altered its policy and said there was not sufficient work to keep all the men engaged. "Each and every one of the plaintiffs, with the exception of one in respect of whom Mr. Stephens has agreed to accept an affidavit In lieu of his oral evidence, must receive judgment for the amount claimed." His Honor fixed costs to be paid by the defendant company as for one action, the amount to be based on the full sum recovered, with witnesses' expenses and disbursements to be fixed by the registrar.