WATERSIDERS' HOLIDAYS

Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25450, 23 March 1948, Page 3

WATERSIDERS' HOLIDAYS

APPEAL COURT ASKED FOR RULING INTERPRETATION OF ACT (P.A.) WELLINGTON, March 22. Tile Court of Appeal to-day began the hearing of proceedings taken by the New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Industrial Union against the New Zealand Waterside Employers’ Association, the Wellington Harbour Board, and the Waterfront Industry Commission to determine the date on which the waterside workers became entitled to their first annual holidays under the Annual Holidays Act, 1944. The Annual Holidays Act, 1944, provides that the employment of workers for the purpose of qualifying for their holidays should be deemed to begin on December 1, 1943. It also provides that the Minister of Labour should approve the conditions upon which workers employed on the waterfront should be entitled to their annual holidays. On July 24, 1944, the Minister of Labour made an order providing that the starting date of employment of waterside workers for holiday purposes should be the first day of the pay week nearest to August 1, 1944. The question which the Court is considering is whether waterside workers should be entitled to count their employment from December 1, 1943, for the computation of their holidays, instead of from August 1, 1944, as provided in the Minister’s order. These proceedings originally came before the Chief Justice (Sir Humphrey O’Leary) at Wellington on December 13, 1947, and were then removed by him to the Court of Appeal for argument and consideration.

On the Bench are the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Finlay, and Mr Justice Gresson. Messrs M. Gresson and T. A. Gresson (Christchurch) are appearing for the union, Mr J. F. B. Stevenson (Wellington) for the Employers’ Association and the Wellington Harbour Board, and Mr T. P. Cleary (Wellington) for the commission.

Case for Union Mr T. A. Gresson. opening the case for the union, said the question before the Court was an important one, affecting the whole waterside industry and hence indirectly affecting all employers and employees. In its financial aspect alone it involved upwards of £ 30,000, and it indirectly involved the validity or otherwise of the order of the Minister of Labour of July 24, 1944. Briefly put, tne argument for the uniop was that the Minister’s order was not an order made for the purpose of fixing a date for the start of the computation of a holiday period, but was made for internal administrative purposes only, and was not intended to affect the rights to holidays acquired by the watersiders by virtue of their labours between December 1, 1943, and July 1, 1944. If, however, the Court considered that it was intended to the contrary then the order could not stand because of the fixation of the date of starting by the act itself.

Mr Gresson also said that originally the Railway Department had been a party to the proceedings, but it did not intend to take any part in the argument before the Court, and would accept the judgment of the Court.

The hearing was adjourned until tomorrow.