'NOTHING TO FEAR'

Evening Post, Volume CXXII, Issue 22, 25 July 1936, Page 10

'NOTHING TO FEAR'

INDUSTRIAL LAW

NEW ENACTMENTS

BARRISTER'S REVIEW

Were he tsmptsd to criticise or express any political opinions on the new industrial legislation, Mr. A. J. Mazengarb, a Wellington barrister and solicitor, in an address to the Wellington branch of the New Zealand Society of Accountants, told his audience that he did not think he could do better than to adopt the words of the Prime Minister on election night: "You have nothing to fear." "When you corns to consider the effect of the

legislation," Mr. Mazengarb continued, '1 think that, having regard to the majority.enjoyed by the Government, the most outstanding' feature of the legislation is its moderation. ... If I may venture a prophecy, it is that 42 years on, in 1978, we will look back just as calmly at the legislation of 1936 as we now do at that of 1894."

Mr. Mazengarb proceeded to give a review of the latest industrial law, dealing with definite and possible effects of the legislation. His address drew an attendance of 140 members of

the society.

After giving an outline of the history of the legislation, Mr. Mazengarb said it would be seen on examination that in the legislation there was very little that was absolutely new. Certain provisions had been extended. Some principles which had. existed for many years had been given wider v scope, and in some cases provisions which previously were embodied in the legislation had been re-enacted. The speaker declared that the key to the situation was undoubtedly the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, which dated back to 1894. One of the main objects of the 1936 amendment was the restoration to the Arbitration Court of the jurisdiction to settle industrial disputes which it.possessed before the 1932 amendment which substituted optional for compulsory arbitration. The main sections of the amending Act of 1936 restored to the Court nothing more than the jurisdiction yhich it had in 1894. THE BASIC WAGE. The basic wage was not a new principle. It' was merely an extension of the minimum wage provision which was contained in almost all awards. The standard adopted in the New Zealand Act was approximately the same as that adopted by Mr. Justice Higgins in Melbourne in 1907—a wage for the maintenance of a man, a wife, and three children. The essential difference was that all Australian Acts mentioned the normal or average needs of the worker, while the New Zealand Act demanded a sum sufficient to maintain a family in a reasonable state of comfort. This question of amount would be settled by the Court before September 8 next. The rate of wage could be varied by the Court at intervals of not less than six months of its own motion or on the application of a union of workers or an association of employers. . COMPULSORY UNIONISM. Naturally, the main question which accountants would ask on the question of compulsory unionism was: "How does this affect us?" "The answer is 'Not at all—until your industry is governed by an award,' " remarked Mr. Mazengarb. "In this connection I might mention the publicity given to ■activities of the Clerical Workers' Union and the attempts to form various guilds. There is the opposition of one section to so-called company unions and the fear on the other hand of being forced willy-nilly into the power of the Trades Hall. I will here venture an opinion, and it is this: that both factions can remain perfectly calm. There is nothing to fear.

"On the other hand, there are obvious difficulties in organising a single body which would represent all sections who could be classed as clerical workers. Assuming such a body were formed, it would then be required to create a dispute with all employers in the Dominion. For what employer does not employ at least one clerical worker? Even if a union did get so far as to cite employers in all industries, various classes of clerical workers or employers would still have their rights under section 106.

"Assume, if you like, that the Court, having heard statements of representatives of the clerical staffs of bank officers, oil companies, stock agents, accountants, and legal clerks, that they were not truly represented by the union, still made an award binding them, each and every one of these malcontents would have a statutory right to join the union, each and every one would have a vote in the affairs of the union—and they might constitute an overwhelming majority. The rules of a union can be altered by votes of the members. But, it is my opinion that that position will never arise. The law in this respect has never been altered. Section 152 empowers the Court, in certain circumstances, to refuse to make an award, and will do so when the applicant union does not truly represent the workers sought to be bound by the award." THE 40-HOUR WEEK. In discussing the 40-hour week Mr. Mazengarb referred to the difference between the New Zealand legislation and the Acts of most Australian States, where the standard was 44 hours. There the law put upon the workers the onus of showing to the Court .special reasons why the hours should be reduced below the standard 44 set by the statute. In Now Zealand the onus was on the employer to show that it would be impracticable to carry on the industry with a 40-hour week, in which case the Court might extend the hours to 44. "HALF-HOUR'S GRACE" FOR OFFICES. Although the closing hour for offices was fixed for 5 p.m. and overtime had to be paid for extended hours, no overtime was payable in respect of the first half-hour (5 to 5.30), which might be used in the process of "cleaning up" after the day's work. Any member of the staff who was in the office after 5.30 p.m. was deemed to be employed, even if the only purpose was study for an examination. The only exemption from this provision applied to the offices of solicitors whose staffs throughout the Dominion had petitioned for this privilege, which was deemed a necessity in their case. The solicitors themselves had not asked for this exemption.

Mr. Mazengarb sketched the history of the Factories Act and the Shops and Offices Act, and referred to those features of the amendments of these Acts which might affect accountants, and in particular to the provisions as to overtime which are now applied to offices as well, as to shops.

At the end of his address Mr. Mazengarb answered numerous questions relating to the formation of unions, closing hours, and wages and overtime.