PRIVATE AGREEMENTS

Evening Post, Volume CXXIII, Issue 143, 18 June 1937, Page 24

PRIVATE AGREEMENTS

BREACH OF AWARDS

TRAVELLING TIME

-_n important question of labour law —whether employees under an award could make an agreement with their employers different from the terms of the award —was raised in the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon before Mr. J. H. Luxford, S.M., in a case in which the Labour Department proceeded against H. G. Templeton, contractor, on two claims for £20 each for alleged breaches of the New Zealand Carpenters' and Joiners' Award. It was alleged that the defendant employed carpenters on "suburban" work; that is, working more than 2.J miles from the Te Aro Post Office, without paying them for the time occupied in conveying them to and from such work, oeyond the 2£-mile limit from the Te Aro Post Office. The only difference between the two claims was that carpenters named in the first were employed from July 1 to December 16, while those in the second worked from September 4to October 21. Partial •instead of full payment for travelling time was alleged in a third claim for £10, the carpenter in this case being employed between July 1 and November 25. Inspector F. W. Ashby acted for the Labour Department. Mr. A. J. Mazengarb, who appeared for the defendant, said that the defence was that an arrangement was entered into by the Carpenters' Union, that if the men received ten minutes off for morning tea, free transport to the job, and two hours' pay on days when work was not commenced, the men would waive the right to travelling time given them in the award. Evidence was given that an arrangement to this effect had been entered into with the Labourers' Union. The secretary of the Carpenters' Union, J. F. Moulton, said that no agreement had been entered into by his union regarding the waiving ot travelling time. Any agreement that had been made with the LabourersUnion did not cover his union. In any case, he could not see how either union could make an agreement going outside of the award. Mr.Luxford (toMr. Mazengarb): Assuming the arrangement to have been made with the carpenters, how far is evidence of it admissible? Mr. Mazengarb: I admit that it cannot override the award. Mr. Luxford. in giving judgment, said that the position in respect of the ten-minute break tor morning tea was unfortunate. It was undoubtedly given by the defendant with the best of intentions. , "The case shows the inelasticity of awards," he added, "but perhaps it is better that they should be inelastic. However good the intentions of an employer may be, he is not entitled to set off one period of time against an--o tThe defendant, said Mr. Luxford, had apparently acted on the assumption that an agreement covered his arrangement with the carpenters, but notwithstanding, he was technically guilty of a breach of an award. A nominal penalty of Is in eacn case was imposed. Mr. Ashby suggested that the ques tion of penalty be held m abeyance to enable the defendant to pay into court the value of the uaveiiint. ti The men had their civil remedy, said Mr. Mazengarb. H judgment w«e heid in abeyance, it would be used as a lever to force payment.