EXTRA PAYMENT FOR WORK

Press, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23400, 6 August 1941, Page 10

EXTRA PAYMENT FOR WORK

CLAIM BY INSPECTOR OF AWARDS ARBITRATION COURT HEARING A settlement along the lines of previous expression of opinion by the Court nearly a year ago was reached yesterday in a claim by the Inspector of Awards (Mr S. E. McGregor) against Alloy Steel (N.Z.), Ltd. (Mr A. C. Perry), in the Arbitration Court. The claim was for a £lO penalty for an alleged breach of an award. It was claimed by the department that under the previous award, moulders employed at moulding were to be paid Id extra an hour until conditions on the 'job were considered suitable by, the disputes committee. After a suggestion that the department should withdraw the claim, the parties finally agreed on a settlement. Under it, the company is to pay id an hour above the minimum rate , for this class of work from December 15, 1938, to October 7, 1940, the date on which the company installed a new fan. For the period from October 7, 1940, on, the Court was again to inspect the defendant company’s factory, and if the . Court considered that conditions had improved . to, such an extent that the extra id should not be paid, then the payment should cease. But if it was thought by the Court that conditions had not so improved the company should continue to pay the additional id until they were sufficiently improved in accordance with the new award.

Mr Justice Tyndall was on the Bench, with him Mr W. Cecil Prime (employers’ representative) and Mr A. L. Monteith (workers’ representative). It was stated in the argument that the matter first came befpre the local disputes committee on June 28, 1939, and without a decision being reached was referred to the national disputes committee, The case had then been stated to the Court which, on September 11, 1940. had held that, the Id an hour was payable until a'decision was* reached, but that the conditions of work at the defendant company’s works were such that it appeared to the Court then that the waiving of half the extra payment might be., an equitable solution so long as. the existing conditions prevailed. It appeared that the company had made an offer of payment. in accordance with the Court’s recommendation, but this had not been accepted by the union. Mr McGregor maintained that the Court’s decision in September, 1940, was only an expression of opinion, and

not binding and that until the disputes committee gave an opinion the Id an hour was payable. Mr Perry on the other hand maintained that all the disputes committee, had to. do was to express an opinion, but as there was a right of appeal to the Court, the Court’s opinion supplanted the disputes committee. He held that the Court had expressed a binding opinion. His Honour finally said that the settlement would have to be adapted to the, new award, and would again be before the Court through, the channels :of the disputes committee.