PAYMENT FOR HOLIDAYS

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22109, 3 June 1937, Page 10

PAYMENT FOR HOLIDAYS

—♦ EFFECT OF COURT’S DECISION AMENDING LEGISLATION SOUGHT * CANTERBURY MANUFACTURERS TAKE ACTION Retrospective legislation is to be sought from the Government to rectify the position which is considered to have arisen from the reserved decision given by Mr J. Luxford, S.M., in Wellington in a test case to decide whether employees were entitled to an additional day’s pay for an award holiday that fell on a day on which the factory would ordinarily be closed. The Magistrate decided that employees were so entitled and members of the council of the Canter bury Manufacturers’ Association at their meeting last evening claimed that this was a reversal of the position as stated by the Labour Department and required legislation by the Government to rectify it. _ “The decision means that Boxing Day, a Saturday, and Anzac Day, a Sunday, have to be paid fbr under the act,’” said the president, Mr H. B. Duckworth. After quoting from the act, Mr Duckworth continued, “The act does not say, as the Magistrate mentions, that last year s amendment confers on employees a holiday bonus irrespective of the hours worked in any week previous to the holiday. It does not say or imply any such bonus. While I am not prepared to say whether the Magistrate is right or wrong in his decision I am quite definite that it affects every manufacturer in the country. It is really a new interpretation of a clause in the act and we cannot allow the position to go on as it is. I have brought the matter forward for members to decide whether we will take it sitting down or whether we will ask the Federation to appeal against it.” Labour Department’s Ruling Mr S. L. Wright said that before Boxing Day the Labour Department gave a ruling clearly stating that it was the intention of the amended act that no employee should suffer a reduction of wages because of a holiday. The decision was a complete reversal of that statement, and if it was upheld it meant that employees were entitled to a full day’s pay for Boxing Day and Anzac Day in addition to the week’s wages, something clearly not intended at the passing of the amendments to th£ act. “As this affects manufacturers in ail trades,” Mr Wright continued, “I move that the Government be approached asking for legislation rectifying the position. I do not believe that the, Government had any intention of creating a bonus over and above a week’s wages, and I think the. proper course is to ask the Federation to approach the Government immediately to take steps for retrospective legislation. If not, every manufacturer will be called on in the Courts to pay for those holidays.” The motion was seconded by Mr F. W. J. Belton, who said that it was plainly the intention of the Government to ensure that employees did not lose by an enforced holiday and not that they should receive a bonus for such a holiday. “Increased Burden On Industry” Mr A. M. Hollander said 1 that he thought they should approach the matter rather as an increased burden on New Zealand industry. They knew no more of the interpretation of the law than the Magistrate did of manufacturing, and so they should not be 100 drastic in their criticism of the legal aspects. Mr H. C. Urlwin suggested that in asking lor retrospective legislation they were agreeing that the Magistrate’s decision was right. They should seek an appeal and await its result, and then take action if necessary. Mr Wright said that the Government had at its disposal legal authorities as capable of giving a decision as the Supreme Court. Tp delay would be dangerous, as employees could claim for retrospective wages only over a six months’ period, which for Boxing Day would be complete this month. If the Government intended that a bonus should be paid or if it intended the interpretation to be that given by the Labour Department, there should be no reason why its intention should not be made known at once. The motion was carried unanimously. and the secretary was instructed to communicate the text of it to the other three associations and the president of the Manufacturer s’ Federation asking tnem, to take similar action immediately.