FERTILISER WORKERS

Evening Post, Volume CXXVII, Issue 134, 9 June 1939, Page 5

FERTILISER WORKERS

OVERTIME CLAUSES

OPINION OF COURT

Questions involving payment for overtime and the extent of the ordinary working week under the Taranaki chemical, manure, and acid workers' award were dealt with by the Court of Arbitration in a reserved opinion on a case stated by Mr. W. H. Freeman, S.M., arising out of proceedings before him recently at Hamilton. - .-■•;:•

The proceedings referred to related to a claim made by the inspector of awards at New Plymouth against the New Zealand Farmers' Fertiliser Co., Ltd., for two alleged breaches by the company of the award.

The questions submitted for the opinion of the Court were as follows:—

1. Where provision is made (or special payments for continuous shift workers for work performed after 1 p.m. on Saturdays or for work performed between 12 midnight on Saturdays and 12 midnight on Sundays, either in terms of an award or in terms of the Factories Act, is it competent to take into account time so worked for the purpose of assessing overtime on ordinary hours worked in any one week?

2. Where provision is made in an award for the pajrment of wages weekly up to 5 p.m. on the Tuesday of each week and further provision is made in the same award defining the week's work as 40 hours, to be worked on six days of the week, Monday to Saturday, inclusive, which is the correct definition of a week for the purpose of assessing overtime payable?

3. Where the schedule of rotating shifts has been prepared by continuous shift men and accepted by the employing company, to what extent are such men entitled to claim overtime in view, of the provisions of an award which provides that men on continuous shifts shall not be paid overtime rates for overtime worked by agreement among themselves for the purpose of changing shifts?

In its opinion, the Court said it could not accept the contention that, in view of the time set for the payment of wages, the working week ended on Tuesday. After quoting the relevant clauses of the award, the opinion referred to work done by continuous shift workers on Sunday, but declined to agree with the inspector's contention that it should be paid for at the rate of twice the double rate provided for Sunday work. It was pointed out that work done on Sundays was treated as special work apart from the work of the ordinary working week, and that a special rate was prescribed for Sunday work.

It was agreed that in this case the company put into operation a roster prepared by certain of the shift workers themselves on the incorrect assumption that the working week ended on Tuesday. The company had been under a misapprehension.

The opinion concluded by stating (hat the Court thought the questions submitted had been sufficiently answered by its findings as to the interpretation of the award.