WATERSIDERS’ HOLIDAYS

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25362, 9 December 1947, Page 5

WATERSIDERS’ HOLIDAYS

APPLICATION OF ACT DEFINITION SOUGHT IN SUPREME COURT (P-A.) WELLINGTON, Dec. «. An application for a declaratory order from the Court in relation to the position of waterside workers arising out of the Annual Holidays Act, 1944, was sought by the New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Union before the Chief Justice (Sir Humphrey O’Leary) in the Supreme Court to-day. Mr M. J. Gresson, with him Mr T. A. Gresson, both of Christchurch, appeared for the plaintiffs; Mr J. F. B. Stevenson for the New Zealand Employers’ Association and the New Zealand Harbour Boards’ Association; and Mr T. P Cleary for the Waterfront Industry Commission. Mr A. E. Bockett, general manager of the Waterfront Industry Commission, watched proceedings. Mr C. H. Taylor, of the Crown Law Office, said the Railways Department did net intend to take any part in the argument, and would accept the decision of the Court.

Mr Cleary said the Waterfront Industry Commission was neutral in the matter, and was only concerned in seeing that the facts were placed fairly before the Court.

The main question for decision was the date on Which qualification began for holidays under the act for A grade unionists registered with the local employment bureau at the ports of Auckland. Wellington, and Lyttelton, (a) before December 1, 1943, and (b) after December 1, 1943, but before August • 1, 1944, for the first time. The act became operative on August 1 after being passed in April The question was also as to whether an order by the Minister of Labour as provided by the act should apply with the commencement of the qualifying date fixed thereby at August 1. Mr T. A. Gresson, opening the case for the union, said that the majority of workers became entitled in December, 1944, to two weeks’ holiday at ordinary pay, but section 37 of the act prescribed that < holidays for waterside workers should be fixed by the Minister of Labour. The substantial question the Court was asked to determine was at what date waterside workers became entitled to their first annual holiday under the act. It was, he said, an important question affecting the whole waterside industry, and m’ght involve the payment of from £40,000 to £50.000.

The plaintiffs maintained that the qualifying period for waterside workers’ holidays began in December. 1943, and that they should have received their first annual holiday in December, 1944. Waterside workers felt that to postpone their annual holiday to December, 1945, was an injustice which placed them at a disadvantage with other workers, and was contrary to the tru*» intention of the act. Section 8 of the act dealt specifically with the date of the commencement of employment, and the Court would have to decide whether section 8 apnlied to waterside workers, and whether the Minister under section 8, could be said to fix the date of the commencement of employment. The Court was driven back « a prODer construction of section 8 to fix the date of the commencement of waterside workers’ emplovment. and to say whether the Waterfront Commission or the shipping companies were the employers at the relevant date. Mr Stevenson said the Minister’s order was of no effect, and was ultra vires, as it exceeded powers given him by the act. If the Minister had not made a valid order he would have to start again and make one. It was difficult tn know who were the employers of labour on the waterfront.

Legal argument will be continued tomorrow.