ARBITRATION COURT

Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 23969, 9 June 1943, Page 4

ARBITRATION COURT

BREACH OF AWARD ESTABLISHED

NO PENALTY IMPOSED

Judgment has been delivered by his Honour Mr Justice Tyndall in the Arbitration Court, in a claim brought by the Inspector of Awards (Mr S. E. McGregor) against the Christchurch Club, for the sum of £lO as a penalty for an alleged breach of the New Zealand (except Westland) Chartered Clubs’ Employees’ Award. In the statement of claim, it was alleged that the defendant employed a male employee, F. Matthews, between May 25, 1942, and December 7, 1942, and failed to pay him the weekly rate of wages prescribed in the award. It was stated that the worker concerned was an old-age pensioner. During the period from May 25, 1942, and December 7, 1942, he was employed by the Christchurch Club, working seven days a week, and being paid £1 a week. He was also supplied with breakfast every day, and was described in the wages book as a “rouseabout."

When the case was heard in Christchurch on May 11, it was claimed for the plaintiff that, Matthews had been employed under the award, and that, in default of an application for an under-rate worker’s permit, the employer was liable to pay him a minimum weekly wage of £4 ss. Counsel for the defendant admitted that the worker did work falling with, in the scope of the award, but relied entirely for his defence upon the doctrine of substantial employment, suggesting that the number of hours worked weekly by Matthews was not sufficient to entitle him to be regarded as a weekly employee. Delivering his judgment in the case, Mr Justice Tyndall stated: “In the present case the employment was a weekly one; the employee was not called upon to work full .time, within the meaning of that term as used in the award; and the prohibition in the last portion of clause 11 (a) applies to every weekly engagement to perform work covered by the award. It appears clear that one object of the award is to prohibit the employment of part-time weekly workers at a rate of wages less than the appropriate rate specified in clause 7.

“We cannot see that there is any conflict to be resolved to which the doctrine of substantial employment may be appropriately applied,” continued his Honour, “for it is admitted that the whole of the work performed by the worker fell within the scope of the award. Further, we do not think the employment was of a sufficiently trivial nature to warrant the application of the maxim ‘de minimis non curat lex.’ We are of the opinion that the defendant has committed a breach of the award. We do not think that the circumstances call for the imposition of a penalty."