ARBITRATION COURT

Press, Volume LXXXI, Issue 24632, 31 July 1945, Page 3

ARBITRATION COURT

* INTERPRETATION OF AWARD An interpretation of two clauses In the Christchurch Tramwgy Omnibus and Powerhouse Employees’ Award was sought by Mr S. E. McGregor, who appeared for the Inspector of Awards, at a sitting of the Arbitration Court yesterday. Mr J. D. Hutchison represented the Christchurch Tramway Board and Mr P. Hansen the New Zealand Tramways Union. The clauses in dispute were (1) clause 3 (a) ‘All broken shifts shall be completed within 11 hours. The board shall make every endeavour to keep the percentage of broken shifts to straight shifts as low as possible”; (2) clause 4 (a). “All work over eight hours in any one day or in excess of the spread of 11 hours in any one day shall be paid for at the rate of time and a half for the first three hours and double time thereafter.’’ Mr Hansen said that clause 3 (a) was clear and that the board’s action in posting a roster providing for a broken shift to extend beyond 11 hours was contrary to the provisions of the award. An employer could not force an employee to work overtime every day In the week. Broken shifts were part of the tramway system and shift work had been In operation for 30 years, Mr Hutchison said. Because of the peak traffic hours between 7 am, and 9 a.m., and between 5 ip.m. and 7 p.m. it was necessary to exceed the 11-hour spread. The Court reserved Its decision after hearing further submissions by counsel. Application was made by the New Zealand Tramways Union (Mr Hansen), for an amendment to the existing- wage rate of the Christchurch Tramway Union, under the Economic Stabilisation Regulations. The Increase asked for was 3id an hour. Mr Hansen said that the object of the application was the preservation of a proper relationship with the rates of remuneration of other workers, not only In the tramways Industry, but in other industries. The application was opposed by the Christchurch Tramway Board, said Mr H. R. Butland, who appeared for that body. The principal issue between the parties was whether credit should be given for an increase on Id an hour included in the present award made in November, 1944. The increase under the existing award should be 2Jd because a greater increase would not restore or preserve a relationship which had been customary for so long as to be established as a proper one. Decision was reserved. . ,