TEST CASE HEARD

Evening Post, Volume CXXIII, Issue 112, 13 May 1937, Page 11

TEST CASE HEARD

INSURANCE HOLIDAYS

PENALTIES CLAIMED

Three "friendly test cases" involving claims for £100 each against the A.M.P., the T. and G., and the Colonial, Mutual life assurance, societies, for alleged breaches of an award, were brought by,-the Labour Department before Mr. J. H. Luxford, S.M.„ in the Magistrate's Court today. The question involved was whether employees of these and many other life assurance societies were not entitled to continue having holidays on St. Patrick's day and the two other saints' days, as they had in, the past.., .The companies had recently decided not to allow holidays on these three days, in breach, it was alleged, of clause 5 of the New Zealand Insurance Workers' Union Award, which was dated nine days before St. Patrick's Day last. The clause reads:—

"No worker shall have his or her wages reduced by. reason of this award, and nothing contained herein shall be deemed or construed to withdraw any annual holiday or other privilege at present being received by a worker from his or her employer." Inspector P. H. Kinsman appeared for the Labour Department, and Mr. H. J. V. James,' for the three, defendant companies. The defendants contended that the clause was only "a good will clause" and "merely declaratory," , carrying with it no legal rights or obligations regarding the continuing of "holidays or other privileges." Mr. Luxford said he had no doubt in his own mind about the matter, but that in1 view of the importance of the case he would give his decision in waiting. Mr. James said that, presuming judgment to be in his favOur, the defendant companies would .prefer to have the decision based on the broad defence mentioned rather than have their employees think that the decision was'based on some of the technicalities he had raised. He asked also that the question of costs be reserved. Mr. Kinsman said that-there would be no value and no sense in putting a clause into an award if the meaning was "merely good will" as the defendant companies contended. AGREED FACTS. ' The facts agreed upon by the. parties were that the three defendant societies were parties to the New Zealand -Insurance Workers' Award, dated March 8, 1937. For some years prior to the making of the award, each of the defendants had as a matter .of-voluntary decision on its part closed its office on each St. Patrick's Day, St. George's Day, and St. Andrew's Day. When any of the days in question had fallen on a Sunday, the defendants had closed their offices on the following Monday. In consequence of such- closing the clerical employees of the defendant societies had enjoyed a holiday on those days. After the making of, the award, but prior to M^rch 15,, each of the defendant' companies decided that it would not.in 'future close its'.offices on three sainiis'"days'"arid in consequence' the clerical'employees of -the companies missed a holiday on St. Patrick's Day. .Many of the other, employers subject to the award had for some years kept their offices open-and required their employees to work on the three saints' days. Among such employers were included most and probably all of the fire insurance parties to the award and also certain life insurance companies. The Government Insurance Department had not for some years closed its Offices on the three saints' days. yEach of the nine employees named in the proceedings :had enjoyed holidays on the three saints' days last year. A number of other life- assurance companies had' also,stopped allowing holidays on the three' saints' days. EMPLOYEES' CLAIM. Mr. Kinsman said that- although there were claims against' each company for £50 each, the claims were based upon the same facts and) were really alternative. He submitted that employees in the three companies named had enjoyed the three holidays for years past arid that these were- accordingly "existing conditions." Saints' days were not specifically mentioned in the award because the fire and some of the life ■ insurance companies had not observed them-in the past. Mr. Luxford: Does not the clause undermine the universal principle of uniformity of awards? Mr. Kinsman: No. It saves only such rights as to holidays as .existed in, a number of companies at the. time of making the award. Mr; James said that before the war, saints' days were almost universally observed, but that subsequently there had arisen a growing custom of nonobservance. Even the Court had once closed. Mr. Luxford: I did not know there was a patron saint-of Justice. During and after the war, continued Mr. James, the holidays had gradually ceased to be observed until only the banks (with holidays fixed by Acts) and a number of insurance companies, observed them. Not one in ten people now knew April 23 as St. David's Day. Mr. Luxford: Or.perjiaps even who St. David was? ■ These' holidays, Mr. James added, were out of touch with the facts, and there was already an outcry from the commercial, community about the trading banks observing them. In addition to a number of legal submissions on technical grounds, Mr. James made one broad general submission—that the ■ holidays were at the employer's option before the award, and that the clause left the position where it then stood, they were still at his option, and were not-to be stopped merely because the award made no mention of them. The employers gave many privileges, but they had clearly not intended themselves to be bound in perpetuity to continue doing so.