HOLIDAY CLOSING

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 69, 15 December 1931, Page 10

HOLIDAY CLOSING

Dismissals for Period Raise Question TERMS OF AWARD Dominion Special Service. Christchurch, December 14. During the Christmas holidays last year several boot factories found it necessary to close down for some weeks, and notice of dismissal was issued to their employees with the intimation that they might be re-engaged at the end of the period. The Arbitration Court was called upon to-day to decide whether, under the provisions of the Dominion Boot Operatives’ Award, these assistants were entitled to be paid for the period during which the factories were closed. It was stated that the interpretation of the award was of the utmost importance to a great number of workers as the employers were taking a similar action over the approaching holiday period this year. Mr. F. M. Robson, for the workers, contended that the dismissal of the assistants was not legal as they had not been issued with a certificate of the length of service as required by the award. This indicated that the dismissals were not bona fide and were merely for the purpose of avoiding payment of the assistants during the period in which the factories were closed.

Mr. H. Duckworth, for the employers, said that it had never been the custom to issue certificates unless they were applied for. The employees had been dismissed definitely owing to the fact that it was necessary to close the factories for periods varying from three to five weeks.

“It has been the custom in the past to close the factories between Christmas and New Year. This year trade conditions are so difficult ns to make it not a question of suspension of business for four days, but a matter of weeks,” said Mr. Duckworth.

Mr. Robson: These assistants have received notice of dismissal for the coining holiday period, yet I know that several factories have sufficient work to keep them busy over Christmas. It is not a question of bad times.

Mr. Justice Frazer said that he did not think that the factories would close when they had sufficient work to keep them going. He thought that it was not necessary for the certificates to be issued to the discharged employees to make their dismissal legal, although such might constitute a breach of the award. He said that the real issue was as follows: Assuming that times were slack, was it permissible for the factories to be closed down over a holiday period of from two to three weeks, for the girls to be dismissed and reengaged at the end of the period, and for the employers not to pay them during that time? His Honour remarked that such a course need not be regarded as an attempt to evade the provisions of the award, and it might apply to any holiday period during the year. The question was whether the non-payment of wages during such a period constituted a breach of the award. The Court would take time to consider the matter.