HOLIDAY PAY

Evening Post, Volume CXXVI, Issue 73, 23 September 1938, Page 11

HOLIDAY PAY

FACTORIES AFFECTED

FULL COURT LITIGATION

PROVISIONS OF ACT

An authoritative decision on the in--1 terpretation of sections of the Fac- ' tories Act, 1921-22, and the Factories ' Amendment Act, 1936, was sought from 1 the Full Court today. The point at issue is payment for statutory holiT days, and the importance of the case is - that factories throughout New Zealand j 5 will be affected by the judgment. T Counsel said the matter had been a : very vexed one since 1936, and had i 1 been the subject of considerable litiT gation in the Magistrate's Court and 1 the Court of Arbitration. ; The Court consisted of the Chief 1 Justice (Sir Michael Myers), Mr. JusJ tice Blair, Mr. Justice Callan, and Mr. Justice Northcroft. ' The appellant was A. and T. Burt, : Ltd., electrical and general engineers I (Mr. J. F. B. Stevenson, with him Mr. [ L. Alderton), and the respondent J. Blair, an engineer, of Auckland (Mr. " P. B. Cooke, K.C., with him Mr. J. F. [ W. Dickson). ■ In the Magistrate's Court Blair sue- , ceeded in a claim for £3 wages for • Christmas Day and Boxing Day, 1937, \ and New Year's Day, 1938. He was a ' coppersmith, and the hours of work were amended by order of the Court of Arbitration on November 4, 1936, to 40 a week, to be worked from Monday to Friday. The effect of the provisions of the . Finance Act, 1936, and the subsequent order of the Court of Arbitration, was [ to reduce hours of work to 40 and m- . crease wages to 2s 53d. The appellant ' company, at all relevant periods, had been paying 2s 6d an hour. During the week immediately preceding Christmas, 1937, the respondent worked from Monday, December 20, to Friday, December 24, inclusive. He ' did not work on Saturday (Christmas ' Day), Sunday (Boxing Day), and m the week ending Friday, December 31, the factory was closed in accordance with the custom in the industry and the provisions of the award. The comI pany did not pay the respondent any {sum additional to his ordinary weekly wage in respect of Christmas Day, Boxing Day, and New Year's Day. RESPONDENT'S CONTENTIONS. In support of his claim for £3 for three days, Blair contended that section 35* of the Factories Act, 1921, as amended by section 13 of the Factories Amendment Act, 1936, made provision for the occupier of a factory to allow every person employed therein holidays on Christmas Day, Boxing Day, New Year's Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, Anzac Day, Labour Day, and the birthday of the reigning Sovereign, and also a halfholiday on every Saturday from 1 p.m.; that section 14 of the Factories Amendment Act, 1936, provided that wages for each whole holiday allowed to any person under section 35 of the principal Act (as amended by section 13 of the Amendment Act) should be at the same rate as for or-, dinary working days, and should be paid on the first .regular pay-day after the holiday; and that section 14 of the Amendment Act made obligatory the payment of wages for those days. Counsel for the company contended that the provisions of the Factories Act meant no more than that an employee should not be deprived of a ! day's wages by reason of a holiday ( falling on any day during an ordinary '■ working week between Monday and Friday. The Magistrate said he was bound : to follow a decision of the Court of Arbitration on the section, and gave . judgment for the amount claimed. ; In the Full Court today, Mr. Steven- ; son said the action involved the In- 1 terpretation of section 14 of the ] Amendment Act and section 35 of the ; Factories Act, as amended by section 13 of the Amendment Act. Formal ] judgment had been entered in the - Magistrate's Court so that the case could be carried to the Supreme Court 1 and then to the Full Court for an - authoritative decision. < A VEXED MATTER. \ The matter was a very important ] one, because it affected all factories ] !in New Zealand and had been a very "i vexed one since 1936, the cause of ] considerable litigation in the Magis- i trate's Court and the Court of- Arbi- ( tration. The object of the proceedings ( was to settle the matter. c The question was: if a statutory £ holiday fell on a non-working day, j was the worker to be paid a day's pay t for that holiday in addition to his or- £ dinary full week's pay? In other words, was he entitled to a bonus in t addition to his week's pay? t

Argument is proceeding.