HOLIDAY PAY CLAIMS

Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25516, 9 June 1948, Page 3

HOLIDAY PAY CLAIMS

fULL APPEAL COURT TO SIT

EARLIER decision of one division of court

WELLINGTON, June 8. Two holiday pay claims in the Court Arbitration to-day were adjeurned " Judge Stevens because points like at issue were to come before the ft-n Court of Appeal. In a Supreme rnurt case and m an appeal to a deSion of the Appeal Court (of five •udges) three Judges took one view Ilpbese points and three - Judges took Jnother. In submissions to the Court *7Arbitration to-day one of the countfl engaged (Mr S. G. Stephenson) recent legislation enabled the full rSrt of Appeal to overrule the derSon of one of its divisions. -When on so important an issue the Court of Appeal is to give a deig on and when parties to tneir case want that to which they are entitled, the simpler way would be to 1 stand it over until the Court of Appeal ewes its decision,” said Judge Stevens - the application- by the Inspector of Awards, Wellington, against the Welltagton Harbour Board, claiming that nenal rates of pay for work performed L‘ a shift worker, Percival Clouston Mackay, watch foreman, on Sundays. Saturdays, and statutory holidays. Sould be included when computing the worker’s pay under the Annual Holidays Act. 1944. ■hie inspector was represented by Mr G F. Grieve, of the Labour Depart* unent, and Mr J- F. B. Stevenson represented the Harbour Board. Varying Decisions

When the case was * called, Mr Stevenson said a fixture had been made for the hearing of an appeal in the case o f O’Donnell versus Walter Buchanan, Ltd., by the full Court of Appeal. In this a decision of Mr Justice Fair was to be questioned. It was a similar case about holiday pay and Mr Stevenson said he had intended referring to Mr Justice Fair’s decision in his argument of the present case. He had also intended a reference to the case of Moon versus Kent Bakeries, which had been the subject of a decision by one division of the Court of Appeal. Now be understood the Moon case decision was to be put into question before the full Court of Appeal, both divisions sitting together, in the case of Thorley versus Challenge Phosphate Company. in Moon’s case the decision of one Supreme Court Judge had been reversed by five Supreme Court Judges, sitting as a division of the Court of Appeal by a majority of three to two. Three j-'dges had therefore decided each way. O’Donnell’s case and Moon's case concerned the same award. "It would plaee your Honour in an invidious position to ask you to give a decision in these circumstances,” said Mr Stevenson. Mr Grieve said the decision in the present case would be subject to the decisions in the Moon and O’Donnell cases. His only course appeared to be to agree to the adjournment. Judge Regrets Delay “It is unfortunate that matters affecting wages should be subject to so much litigation and delay; I put the blame on no one.” said Judge Stevens, in granting the adjournment sine die. A similar -position arose after a holiday pay case affecting dairy factories, had been argued before Judge Stevens this morning* by Mr Grieve and re-' plied to by Mr S. G. Stephenson on behalf of the dairy factory cited. Concluding his submissions. Mr Stephenson referred to the pending action before the full Court of Appeal.