HOLIDAY PAY

Press, Volume LXXXI, Issue 24567, 16 May 1945, Page 8

HOLIDAY PAY

POSITION OF TEMPORARY ' WORKERS MAGISTRATE’S DECISION (PA) AUCKLAND. May 15. An important written decision,was given by Mr J. H. Luxford, S.M., this mornin/ in the case of A. K Eyre, a carpenter, in a claim from the Auck land Stevedoring Company, Ltd., Yor 2s Id. which, he alleged, .was the balance due to him under the provisions of the Annual Holidays Act in respect of a period of 101 hours of ship carpentering work. The point at issue affects a large section of workers throughout the Dominion. ._ The Magistrate said the plaintiff was a worker who came under the section of the act relating to ‘those whose term of employment, has been less than three weeks.’ this class of worker was entitled to have affixed to his holiday card uncancelled stamps of an amount equivalent to one-twenty-fifth of his ordinary pay for the time worked by him during his period of employment. , The defendant contended that the plaintiff was not entitled in any one week to more than one-twenty-flfth of the amount he could have earned at the ordinary rate during the normal weekly number of hours. Accordingly plaintiff was paid in* stamps one twenty-fifth of £6 15s Bd, being 44 hours at 3s Id for the first week; and one 1 twenty-fifth of £6 3s 4d, being 40 hours at 3s Id for the second week. A worker in his group, however, was not given the privilege of receiving any benefit in respect oj hours actually worked by him. That was a reasonable provision, as otherwise he would be entitled to one twentv-flfth of a normal week’s wages for any period of empliyment less than a week. It had to be remembered that the act not only conferred a benefit on the worker, but imposed an obligation on the employer and the Legislature had .been careful to prescribe a definite limit to that obligation by using the words “ordinary pay” in a specially defined sense or meaning. Keeping this in mind, it was impossible to find any good or logical reason for increasing the obligation of an employer in respect of a worker in the plaintiff’s group. . The Magistrate held that the plaintiff had been fully paid the whole holiday pay due to him by the defendant, and judgment was therefore given for the defendant