A CLAIM FOR WAGES

Dominion, Volume 19, Issue 117, 11 February 1926, Page 7

A CLAIM FOR WAGES

(To the Editor.) Sir —ln your issue of to-day you have a report of a case where a steward had taken action against a shipping company (Levin and Company) for certain wages. All this appeared under the caption: Contrary to All lu/tRe ” No doubt this statement of the case was supplied to your paper, because I am told that at the time the case was heard by trate no representatives of the Press were present, and therefore the Magistrate may have used the words of your heading, and perhaps he may not have. If he did so use them, then in effect it means that an employer ca» commit breaches of an award of the Arbitration Court and pay wages less than are prescribed therein, and have no fear of any penalty being put upon him for so doing. . However, in the report of this case the whole facts were not published, and seeing that the Cooks and Stewards’ Union has been mentioned in vour report, I beg space to set out the full facts of this case. Phillips was a steward employed in a ship owned by Levin and Company, working under an award of the Court of Arbitration, in which it is provided that a “halfday a week shall be allowed at the home port, and if not allowed thereat a payment of Bs. had to be made to the worker. In April 1925 the union called the attention of the shipping company to the fact that thev were committing a breach of the award by not giving this man his half-holiday off in his home port This shipping company in reply stated that they had the right to eive him his half-holiday where they wished, as the ship was not trading regularlv to the home port. However After some further correspondence’ the union reported this shipping company for a breach of the award to the Department of Labour, and the Department took proceedings against the company for a breach of the award on August 25, 1925, and the shipping company were fined 10s., which cleartv showed that the contention of the union was correct, and the companyhad all along violated the terms of the award. After this decision the union again approached the company for the payment of wages for this man, and the company refused to pay; therefore a civil action had to be taken against the company for recovery, and if taking this action was “contrary to justice,” then all an employer has _to lo is to fail to pay wages amounting to £l5 Is., as in this case, and get off with a fine of 10s. for breaking the award, and he (the employer) is in benefit to the amount of £l4 Ms on the transaction. . . Therefore, when we have decisions from Magistrates such as in this case < is practically telling the employers That thev can continue committing breaches ’of Arbitration Court awards bv underpaying wages, and with ininunitv.—Yours. etc.. U. KENNEDY. Secretary, Federated Cooks and Stewards’ Union, Wellington, February 16, 1926.