MINIMUM WAGES

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21116, 17 March 1934, Page 6

MINIMUM WAGES

DRESSMAKERS' AWARD SUCCESSFUL APPEAL BY COMPANY (MISS ISSOCIATION TELSOHiM.) WELLINGTON, March 16. The Court of Appeal to-day considered a question stated for its opinion by Mr Justice Frazer, of the Court of Arbitration, concerning the minimum wage payable to dressmaking apprentices under the Factories' Act, 1921-1922 In July, 1933, the Christchurch Dress and Mantlemakers' Union sued J. Ballantyne and Co., Ltd.. for a penalty of £lO, on the ground that defendants had paid apprentices 27s a week instead of 30s a week, the minimum rate fixed by the award and by the Factories' Act, 1921-1922. The defendants claimed that they were entitled to deduct 10 per cent, from the award rate of 30s a week by virtue of the ■ general order of the Arbitration Court in 1931 reducing all awards by 10 per cent. „ „, , The magistrate, Mr E. D. Mosley, held that the general 10 per cent, reduction did not apply to the minimum wages fixed also by Statutes such as the Factories Act, and gave judgment in favour of the union for 10s and | costs. Ballantyne and Co. appealed against this decision on a point of law to the Court of Arbitration, and the appeal was referred by that court for the opinion of the Court of Appeal. Counsel for the appellant are Messrs R. A. Young, and H. J. Bishop. For respondent Mr K. G. Archer appeared. The proceedings, it is stated, were instituted at the instance of various large firms in Christchurch and elsewhere in New Zealand who have been Eaying their employees on the same asis as Ballantyne and Co. paid theirs. Important Point In opening the case for the appellant, Mr Young stated that the question before the court was one of considerable importance, as it directly concerned a very large number of factory workers in the Dominion. Since the passing of the Arbitration Court Amendment Act, 1932. few awards which had expired had been renewed and both the employers and employees had had to refer to the provisions of the Factories Act for the minimum rates of wages payable in factories. In the present case the award rate was 15s a week during the first six months, rising at the end of three years to £2 2s 4d a week. The Factories Act provided a minimum of 10s a week for the first year, with annual increments of 5s until a wage of 30s a week was reached. An employee in the present case had been engaged under the terms of the award at the rate of 15s a week. Counsel contended that so long as the annual wage paid by the appellant and other factory owners was not lower than the minimum prescribed by the Factories Act, the appellant was not required to increase the weekly wage by annual increments of ss. The respondent union contended that whatever was the wage at which a factory employee commenced work the factory owner was required by statute to increase this wage every year by an amount of 5s weekly until a wage of 30s a week was reached. Case for (he Union Mr Archer, opening the case for (lie union, stated that the practice for which the union was striving in the present appeal had been observed by the court of arbitration over the whole of the last decade. The court of arbitration had always held that wages should be increased each year by a definite annual increment being added to the wage at which the employee commenced work. He submitted legal argument to show that the Factories Act of 1921-22 supported this contention. The court did not call upon counsel for the appellant to reply. Giving judgment for the appellant, the Chief Justice (the Rt. Hon. Sir

Michael Myers* stated that the Fac- ; lories Act provided only a minimum rate of wages, and that under this /rate the employees concerned would be entitled in their fourth year to 25s a week. They were being paid in accordance with the award at a rate of 30s a week, less the 10 per cent, reduction applying to all awards. As this amount was not less than the minimum provided by the Factories Act, the wage was liable to the 10 per cent, reduction claimed by the appellant. The other members of the court, Mr Justice Herdman, Mr Justice Blair, and Mr Justice Kennedy concurred in this decision.