TRAMWAY DISPUTE

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 14052, 25 May 1911, Page 5

TRAMWAY DISPUTE

QUESTION OF WAGES

At the Magistiato*s Court on February 22nd, the Christchurch Tramway Board was charged with failing to pay full wages to a motorman. After hearing argument between Mr T. G. Russell, who appeared for the Board, and Mr W. H. Haggar, Inspector ot Factories, the Magistrate (Mr H. W. Bishop) said that bis mind was not free from doubt, and ho thought the result would bave to bo in favour of the party seeking to escape a penalty. The agreement had been in force a long time-,. and both parties had acquiesced m tlie custom (the paying of a man only for work actually done, instead of for a full week). It was the first time that th© matter had arisen. Judgme.it was given for the defendant, without costs. i A re-hearing was granted, in order to allow of evidence being brought as to tbe agreement oomo to between the employers and employees prior to the industrial agreement coming into force, and any evidence which the defendant might desire to bring forward as a defence in tho case. Tlie matter was before tho Court yesterday afternoon, Mr W. J. Hunter appearing on behalf of the Department. Mr Hunter stated that the facts as to tho alleged - breach ha<l been admitted. His Worship declared that he had no notes of tho evidence given at the hearing. After argument, Mr Hunter stated that the man concerned had been paid for 42 hours at Is l_d per hour, and for one hour at Is Bjd; he should have been paid for 4S hours at the rate of. Is l.d per hour. His Worship reiterated that it would be necessary to prove these facts, or to get Mr Russell to admit them. Mr Russell admitted that on the view of tho other side that the man was entitled to a minimum week of 48 hours, his wages should come to £2 14s for that week, whereas tho time ho worked was paid for and came to £2 Ss lid, at the rate of Is l.d per hour. Ho would further admit that during tho first week of the • fortnight, on tho samo basis of reckoning, he had been paid tho former amount on the basis of Is l.d per hour. His wages for that fortnight had amounted to £7 10s 2d.

Mr Hunter put in tho award mado between tho defendant Board and the Tramway Employees' Industrial Union of W T orkers, reported in Vol. 10, 1909, page 107. Mr Hunter then closed his case, reserving tho right to call further evidence if necessary.

Mr Russell applied for a non-suit on the construction of the section itself. It was not stated that the hours of work should bo eight hours per day. There wero two cases that were relied on by the Labour Department,—ono re the Wellington tramway employees, Vol. 8, page 67. Part of the section was the same, but he contended that it had been held in that case that it was obligatory upon tlie Council to provide eight hours' work per day for greasers and firemen, but not for motormen and conductors. » Tlie other case was ono arising out of an application for the interpretation of award re the ■Auek'nnd Electric Tramways, Vol. 9, page 749, and was not on all fours. Under the previous award it was understood, and never questioned, that the Beard liad the right to employ the men up to nine hours -per day, and to pay them only for the time actually worked. On September Ist, 1908, the Union wrote to the Board, submitting a draft agreement proposed, stating that the hours of all employees, except motormon and conductors, should be eight hours per day. The Board, in its reply, stipulated that tho hours of work should bo up to nine hours per day, tho existing rule. A conference was held later, amd at an adjourned meeting the claim was abandoned' by tho men, being.'ruTed" oil. -by the consent of both parties. Later, 'a conference was held, with -Mr J. R ; . Triggs, Conciliation Commissioner,, when* an agreement was arrived at. For nearly two years the men had been accepting payment for broken time, without protest

Herbert Poarce, chairman of the Cliristchurch Tramway Board, stated that the men had asked for a minimum working day of eight hours. At that time the Board could not have provided that work for all .employees. There was a conference between representatives of the Board and the Union on December 17th. The Board did not. agree to giving an eight hours' day or eight hours' pay for any shorter day. At tho first two • conferences, nothing was settled about the hours of work or extra pay. The conference was adjourned until the 33rd, and thou the Board was so emphatic that it would not agree to tho proposal for an eight-hour day, that members of the conference understood that the men abandoned the claim. He had received no demand from the men for the difference between the eight hours guaranteed and tbe amount of pay for time worked, until tho summons in the present case was received.

In answer to Mr Hunter, witness said that at the conference Mr Beaven made it clear that if the men did not work eight hours' they would not receive eight hours' pay He had no memory of the men asking for an. eight-hour day at the conference before Mr Triggs.

Frank Thompson, secretary and general manager' of the Christchurch tramways, stated that under the first agreement the men "neither claimed nor were paid for an eight hours' day if they worked a lesser period. Tlie paysheets for the past five years would show that this arrangement had been adhered to. So far as. ho recollected the men had not claimed until the present case cropped up, that they should be paid : for an eight hours' day. At the conference on December 23rd, with certain exceptions, the Union representatives had accepted the clause submitted by. the Board. It was a case of give-and-take, and tho union withdrew its claim as to the eight hours' days. Witness stated, answering Mr Hunter, that'he had received a letter from Jeremiah Crowley,, protesting against receiving less than 8 hours' pay for a day's work. That was tho instance leading to tho present case. He was not aware . that Crowley had mado thirty : or more objections on ' his pay-sheet as to being paid for less than eight hours. Instances were frequent of men being paid for less than an 8 hours' da-y, but ho believed the majority got 8 or more hours a day.

Mr A. W r . Beaven and Mr Geo. Booth gave similar evidence to Mr Pearce's. This closed Mr Russell's case.

His Worship said that he had granted tho rehearing in order to give Mr Russell the opportunity to -prove statements which he had believea Mr Hagger had admitted. Mr Russell hacTnot done so. To prove what had been customary under the old award, and had continued under the award in force, it would be necessary to produce the pay-sheets.

Mr Hunter called Jeremiah Crowley, motor man in the employ of the Tramway Board.

His Worship interrupted the examination of the witness. Ho detailed what had occurred between Mr Russell, Mr Hagger, and himself, as to his suggestion that a case should be stated. Ho would find formally that a breach of award had not been shown. There was so much doubt as to the meaning of the, words that they should go to the Court that had _sed the words and ask their meaning. In' answer to his Worship, witness

stated that- on about thirty occasions he- had nut on his wages sheets a memo, that he was entitled to not less than eight hours pay per day. On the first occasion that he had received a less wage ho had complained to a clerk. He had booked for eight hours' work when he had done less, adding a memo, that ho believed he was entitled to this. Iv referenco to this ho had received a letter from the traffic manager, saying that if he did so again it would be treated as an act of insubordination. Ho bad not cone to tho secretary, tho traffic man _or, or Mr Bagger about tho matter iv tho beginning.

His Worship held that on law and facts the plaintiff had failed to prove that a breach had been committed. He granted Mr Hunter leave to appeal, setting the security required at tie amount already .fixed.