CAR DRIVERS' WAGES

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21320, 13 November 1934, Page 15

CAR DRIVERS' WAGES

TRANSPORT OF SCHOOL CHILDREN ARBITRATION COURT CASE Whether rural mail contractors occasionally carrying passengers and contractors transporting children to and from school came within the scope of the Dominion Passenger Transport Drivers* Award was an interesting point discussed yesterday in the Arbitration Court, before Mr Justice Frazer (president) and Messrs A. L. Monteith (employees' representative) and W. Cecil Prime (employers' representative). Mr G. Ecroyd, of Hawarden, North Canterbury, had made application to be struck off the list of parties to the Dominion Passenger Transport Drivers' Award, Mr D. I. Macdonald, secretary of the Canterbury Employers' Association, appeared in support of the application and Mr E. Parlane, on behalf of the union, opposed it. Mr Macdonald said that the applicant had been included in the list of parties to the award for the first time. The grounds for the application were that Mr Ecroyd was not a passenger transport vehicle proprietor within the meaning of the act, which covered two groups of services, omnibus services and service car services. Mr Macdonald claimed that applicant did not come within either group. Mr Ecroyd had a Government rural mail contract. On this service he occasionally carried passengers, but as there was no fixed route or schedule it could not be considered in the service car group. Under another Government contract Mr Ecroyd conveyed children to and from school, but for the purpose of the act school children were classed as "goods," and not as passengers. Mr Macdonlad submitted that the services run by Mr Ecroyd were not sufficient to bring him under the act. Mr Ecroyd said he held a passenger transport license, though he often carried only one passenger a week. He employed two men, whose driving times a day were two and five hours respectively.

A Special Clause His Honour said that applicant was clear of the award with respect to the school service he maintained. It appeared, however, that he was liable to come under the award in that he held a passenger service license. A special clause should be introduced to the award covering this type of service, as the major part of the work of Mr Ecroyd's drivers was not within the scope of the award. It appeared that l-24th of the time of one of the drivers was given to passenger transport. If the award was applied, that driver would have to be paid the award rate for passenger service drivers. Mr Macdonald said that it was likely that provision as suggested would be made in the next application for an award. Considering that several like employers were without the award, it would be hard, in anticipation of the new award, if one employer was forced to compromise with the union. Mr Parlane said that if Mr Ecroyd escaped the award he would come under the General Drivers' Award, which was much less elastic It seemed that one of Mr Ecroyd s drivers should be covered by the. award. His Honour said that the award seemed unsatisfactory and that drivers as employed by Mr Ecroyd should have a special clause of their own, and so form a special party to the award. Although the carrying of passengers was covered by express terms of the award, his Honour could not but feel that the award referred to service car drivers. Judgment was reserved.