IMPORTANT APPEAL

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 2, 28 September 1943, Page 4

IMPORTANT APPEAL

Minimum Wage Order Dominion Special Service. AUCKLAND, September 27. An appeal affecting the payment of wages to large numbers of freezing works employees was heard by Mr. Justice Callan. The appeal was against the decision of Mr. J. ffl. Luxford, S.M., who found against Walter Harwood, freezing works employee (Mr. Sullivan), in his claim for £ll 3s Id wages from the Westfield Freezing Company, Limited (Mr. Alderton). The question was whether in terms of the Minimum Wage Order the plaintiff was entiUed to recover the difference between the amount actually received by him for work done during ordinary working hours in each week and the weekly minimum of £5 10s. In other words, the question was, to what extent, if any, an employer might apply money earned as overtime under a contract of sei vice toward his obligation to pay the minimum wage of £5 10s? Wag a man entitled to the £5 10s even if he earned that or more in overtime? . . , , In delivering an interim judgment the magistrate said that in his opinion, tor the purpose of determining the amount to which a worker was entitled under the Minimum Wage Order, a clause in .that order superseded the definition of overtime in the award. Mr. Sullivan said that employees like the appellant were essential workers and therefore were tied to their work under existing legislation. The rates of pay and ordinary hours of work were fixed by an award, and the terms of the Minimum Weekly Wage (Essential Undertakings) Order. 1942, were applied to this industry The contention on behalf of the appellant was that the minimum wage was fixed bv that order at £5 10s a week, and tliat from July to October of last year he did not get that minimum wage. If there was any confusion as to the meanin” of the relevant clause then the intention of the framers of the order must be given effect to. Mr. Aiderton said the effect of this order on freezing workers generally was very extensive and very vital. To the respondent’ company, with a number of employees rising to 2500 in the busy season, even one week’s minimum wage on the basis claimed would involve additional payments of over £12,000, and the company would have received nothing in return. The alternative questions the Court was invited to answer were: In a claim for payment of a minimum wage, can an employer apply any portion of moneys paid to a worker as overtime, bonus or special payments in relief of such claim? Or is an employer permitted to apply only such moneys as are paid to a worker for work performed during ord inpry working hours in relief ofsnch claim? His Honour reserved his decision.