POINTS AT ISSUE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIX, Issue 280, 26 November 1938, Page 10

POINTS AT ISSUE.

CLARITY NEEDED. AWARD PHRASING. WATERSIDE WORKERS' CASE. JUDGE EXPRESSES OPINION. That a rc-ponsibilit y rested on parties to industrial agreements to make reasonably eertnin tlmt tlie language they Inid employed expressed their mutual intention* ntid that L'reater appreciation of tlmt >ti ~il>i Ii I y would probably remit in fewer applirat ions to the Court to interpret provisions really framed by the parties themselves, was the Opinion expressed liy Mr. .(ii-tice O'liegan in 11 memoraiidiim issued by the Arbitration Court, accompn living interpretations of US points at is-mc under the New Zealand Waterside Workers Award, in which applications) lor ruling* were .sought liy the joint secretaries of the national disputes committee under the award. In his memoiii ndtmi his Honor oh sprvpil tlmt it win n mat tor for commotit that, such a long list of intorj>retations had arisen in ro*]»ect W ail

Mr. Justice O'Regan. award made aa recently as November 30 last, the terms of which had been agreed upon in the Conciliation Council. The Act enjoined the Court to set out in clear terms the provisions of an award, but the Court was naturally reluctant to alter terms on which the parties themselves had agreed on matters on which they must be the most conversant. Thus the initial responsibility rested on the parties. Meaning of "Job." In one group of cases the points in dispute rested upon the interpretation of the meaning of "job" in the award. It was claiqied in each instance by the union that where a gang ceased work on a hatch before another gang also employed thereon, the first gang was entitled to be paid up to the time the second gang ceased work. The Court pointed Out that a clause in the award provided that "the job for which the men are engaged shall be stated at the time of the engagement, and shall be limited by the employer to the ship or hatch, or.wharf, or lighter, or hulk," etc, The Court was of the opinion that under the clause the job for which a man was engaged was the whole of the work being carried on in the ship, or hatch, pr wharf, etc. The employer was entitled to limit the job to a hatch, but not to any particular work carried on in that hatch. Another interpretation under the award given in 'three cases was that when men were engaged on the wharf to assist' a gang which started work at earlier time, the extra men so engaged were entitled to be paid from the time the gang started. Overtime Dispute. In fire cases payment to midnight was claimed by gangs engaged to work overtime, but who were discharged before midnight. The question involved was whether the employer when giving the order to work should havie stated the exact time up to which employment was to continue. The Court pointed out that obviously the employer desired work to go on until the vessel was ready to sail. It was impossible to estimate accurately the time actually worked. The men were entitled to payment only for the time actually worked. In an Auckland case the wharf men refused to truck one double dump of wool, the distance being 50 yards; unless two men were put on each truck. The Court held that the union's view that two men were required was incorrect. In another series of disputes affecting the New Zealand Waterside Workers' Award, one point at issue was whether men who were ordered to start work at 5 a.m. on a Saturday and who did not complete their work on that day were entitled to be paid to noon when tbey stopped work, or up to 5 p.m. The Court pointed out that the award provided that in the event of men commencing work before 7 a.m., pay for that dHy should be continuous until 5 p.m. No exception was made in the case of work commencing on Saturday, and hence the men concerned were entitled to bo pa id up to 5 p.m.