REFUSING OVERTIME

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 119, 13 February 1920, Page 7

REFUSING OVERTIME

UNIONS FINED £10 EACH

THE BONUS QUESTION (By Telegraph—Pre«s Association.) Christchurch. February 12. Judgment was delivered in the Magistrate's Court this morning by Mr. 8. E. M'Carthy, S.M., in the eases'brought by the Inspector of Awards against the Christchurch Iron and Brass Moulders' Union, the Canterbury United Boilermakers and Iron and Steel Shipbuilders' Union, and tho Christchurch branch of tho Amalgamated Society of Engineers. In each case ,£IOO was claimed. The statement of claim in each suit alleged: "That the defendant union did between October 1 and November 30, 1919. take proceedings with tho intention of defeating the provisions of clause 2 of the amended awards binding eaoh union by deciding by resolution to work no overtime until tho employers agreed to take the bonus awarded by order of the Arbitration Court into calculation in comput ing the amount payable for overtime pursuant to the said award." Tn delivering judgment. Mr. M'Carthy said that tho employer alone had the right of determining whether overtime was or was not to bo worked, and it was tho duty of the worker to obey an order to work 'overtime, if the order wore reasonable. Whilst tho worker was bound to obey a, reasonable order to work overtime, it was equally clear that the cm pioycr could not work his employees to the verge of exhaustion' by keeping them employed for unreasonable hours, on pain • of dismissal. In the present ease, said Mr. M'Carthy. t]iero was no suggestion that the hours to be worked were unreasonable. The sole ground of the dispute, was tiro basis of computation for overtime rates of nav. Tho employers clearly had the right to demand that the workers should work overtime during reasonable hours for overtime Tates of pay,'and that in computing those rates the bonus, should bo excluded as a basis of computing. When, therefore, each union passed a resolution refusing to work overtime unless tho bonus were included as a basis of computation, and when tho respective members of tho several unions took up tho same attitude, it and'they took proceedings with tho intention of defeating one of the provisions of'the award as amended, and brought itself and themselves within the ambit of section 110. Even if tho employers had offered inadequate remuneration, keeping in view the provisions of tho award, that would not have iustificd tho refusal to work overtime. So also were, as here, the workers had unlawfully refused, to work overtime, that would not hnvo justified a lockout. There were tribunals to settle such questions, frhere justice and Teason, and not force and intimidation, held sway. The opinion was expressed that those employers who included the bonus as a bas's.bf compu-tation-committed a breach of the amended awards, i This was not so. The use of the word "shall" in the computing clauses did not mean that the employer might not nay overtime rates of -ay based .on the bonus, in addition to the flat,rate. The clause as a whole fixed a minimum rate of pax for overtime, which an employer could exceed at his pleasure. The word "shall" was not always mandatory. Hero certainly it was not. In the Magistrate's opinion each union had committed a breach of the award as amendpd.. Judgment was given'for plaintiff in each case for .£lO.