DRAPERY FIRMS

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 146, 17 March 1934, Page 8

DRAPERY FIRMS

Minimum Wage Decided by Court of Appeal INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE The minimum award rate payable to certain workers in the Christchurch Dress and Mantle Makers’ Industrial Union was decided by the Court of Appeal yesterday in a case set out by the judge of the Arbitration Court. Appellant was J. Ballantyne and Co., Ltd., whose counsel stated that a very large sum of money was Involved, as the principal drapery firms in Christchurch, with factories, were making payments according to what they considered to be the amount provided by law. Similar payments were also being made by large drapery firms in other centres. The Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers), Mr. Justice Herdman, Mr. Justice Blair, and Mr. Justice Kennedy were on the bench. Mr. R. A. Young, with him Mr. H. J. Bishop, appeared for the appellant, and Mr. K. G. Archer for the union. The case arose from a claim made before Mr. E. D. Mosley, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court, Christchurch, by the Christchurch Dress and Mantle Makers’ Industrial Union of Workers against J. Ballantyne and Co., Ltd. Plaintiffs claimed to recover from defendants the sum of £lO as a penalty for a breach of the Canterbury dressmakers’ and milliiners' award.

It was alleged that defendant company committed a breach in that, during the period of six months prior to June 24, 1933, it employed persons as Improvers during the seventh six months of their employment, and failed to pay them the wage of £l/10/- a week provided by clause 4 of the award. The magistrate gave judgment for plaintiffs (now respondents) for the sum of 10/-, holding that a breach of the award had been committed in that appellants had failed to pay the workers the minimum rate of wages fixed toy the award and by the Factories Act, which the magistrate held to be 30/a week. Appellant contended that the minimum rate was 25/- a week. The question for the opinion of the Court of Appeal was: What is the minimum weekly rate of remuneration fixed by section 32a of the Factories Act, 1921-22, for the workers in question during the seventh half-year of their employment? In delivering judgment, the Chief Justice said that the point involved was to his mind quite a simple one. By the award the girls were to be paid a minimum wage for the first six months of 15/- a week, with.half-yearly Increments of 2/6 until the eighth six months, when the increments were to be increased to 5/- a week. Therefore in the seventh six months the girls would receive 30/- a week. In May, 1931, the general order of the Arbitration Court reduced the award rates of wages by 10 per cent.' Appellants consequently claimed that they were entitled to deduct 3/a. week from the wage of 30/- which the girls were receiving/ The Arbitration Court’s order provided, • however, that wages were not to be reduced below the minimum fixed by any statute. It then became necessary to consider the meaning of section 32 of the Factories Act; 1921-22. The question was ■' What was the minimum rate fixed by the statute? His Honour said that in his opinion the minimum wage in the fourth year would be 25/- : a week. Mr. Justice Herdman. Mr. Justice Blair, and Mr. Justice Kennedy concurred in the opinion expressed by the Chief Justice. In addition, Mr. Justice Kennedy said that he agreed with what the section explicitly stated, that it was to prevent persons being employed “without reasonable remuneration in money.” The following section and the prescribed form of certificate supported the suggested interpretation.