HOLIDAY PAY

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 64, 9 December 1930, Page 15

HOLIDAY PAY

Dispute With City Council

BLACKSMITHS’ STRIKERS

Blacksmiths employed by the W ellington City Council who work on January 2, Easter Saturday, and other holidays, are entitled to double time, but not so blacksmiths’ strikers. This would appear to be the position from what was said yesterday when Mr. T. Murray, on behalf of the Wellington Metal Workers’ Union, waited upon the Works’ Committee of the City Council to ask that double time be paid to the strikers when working on January 2 an<J on Easter Saturday. Mr. Murray contended that the men had not been paid overtime, in accordance with the award, as they should have received double time for working on January 2 and Easter Monday. The clause in the award allowed the City Council to observe the holidays mentioned in the ny- ■ laws, but the by-laws did not mention holidays. and that was used, he said, as a quibble to put the matter on one side. On Easter Saturday the blacksmiths were required to work, and were paid double time, while the blacksmiths’ strikers only got bare time. The two dates should be included in the list of holidays. If they did not work they were not paid at Mr. G. A. Hart, city engineer, said he would like to correct one or two misstatements. ■ Mr. Murray: There are no mis-state-ments. , , .... Mr. Hart: You may not think so, but I say there are. _ ~ , The question, he continued, hinged on the blacksmiths’ strikers, and they were not in the same award as the N acksl “j|„ That was not his doing, but the Arbnration Court’s. Mr. Murray had seen him with regard to the point that the strikers would require double pay for ?? those days, and at the time he.(Mr..Hart) gave instructions for the strikers to be paid the back pay and double pay. At the next sitting of the Arbitration Court the question was raised, and a cla was inserted puling the blac .H®“ llth A strikers under an aw ard according which they were not entitled to doubl ® pay. This position had since been o£ served, and he wo’uld not be rrsi.g duty to council if he did otherwise. The matter was explained in a letter to Mr. Murray, whose reply was that he did not know how the clause R«t in the award. The chairman suggested that Mr. Mu rav should take' the matter to. the Arbi tration Cxnirt and get itsf decision.