FORTY-HOUR WEEK

Evening Star, Issue 22687, 29 June 1937, Page 8

FORTY-HOUR WEEK

EFFECT ON PIECE WORKERS' WAGES JUDGMENT IN IMPORTANT TEST CASE NO BR|ACH OF AWARD Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., gave his reserved judgment to-day in a test case affecting every Industry in New Zealand in which piece-work is carried out. The case was one in which the Department of Labour proceeded against Messrs Ross and Glendining Ltd., claiming that piece workers employed by them had been insufficiently paid since the introduction of the 40-hour week in September of last year. Judgment was given for the defendant company. Mr G. F. Grieve, who represented the department, stated at the original hearing that the case affected the interpretation of all awards in force on September 1, 1936, and still in force, in which provision was made for payment for piecework' as distinct from ordinary rates. _ The woollen industry was now working under the _ 1928 award, which had been amended in accordance with the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act of last year, providing that the introduction of the 40-hour week should not involve any reduction in wages. The department’s case rested almost completely on the provision in the Act that “ the ordinary rate of weekly wages ” should not be reduced. Mr Bartholomew’s full judgment was as follows: “The following arc the particulars of the alleged broach: —The defendant company, being an original party to the' award, failed to pay to Arthur M’Coll the minimum rate of wages provided by the award as amended by order of the Court of Arbitration on July 1, 1936, for the period from September 1, 1936, to March 26, 1937. M'Coll is a wool-sorter employed in the defendant company’s mill, and his case was taken at random from amongst the employees to test the question at issue in these proceedings. “ The award provides 45 hours shall constitute a week’s work, and that wool-sorters are to be pair 2s Id an hour—the wage in every case to bo an hourly one, and a worker to be entitled to bo paid only for the time actually worked. Provision is also made for piece workers, with the following proviso:—‘ Provided that such 'piece workers shall receive not less than the amount specified for time workers.’ Whether the work is to bo performed by time or piecework is apparently a matter of arrangement between employer and employee. During the period in question M’Coll was employed almost entirely on piecework, his respective earnings being—Piecework, £167 9s 3d; time rates £8 10s 4d. “ The Arbitration Court, by order dated July 1, 1936, amended the award by reducing the nours from 45 to-40 a week, operative from September 1, 1936, and also decreed that the rates of pay prevailing on September 1, 1936, would be adjusted in accordance with sub-section 3 of section 21 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act, 1936, so that the ordinary rate of weekly wages of any worker shall not be reduced by reason of tho reduction made in the number of his working hours. This merely repeats the words of the Statute. It was submitted by the inspector of awards that the working hours having been reduced from 45 to 40 a week, it was the intention of the legislature that the piece work rates should be increased by 45-40, or 12J per cent. Section 21, subsection 3, however, only relates to tho ‘ ordinary rate of weekly wages of any worker.’ It is difficult to see how this expression can be applied to the earnings of a piece, worker, and the difficulty is accentuated when regard is had to the varying capacities and earning powers of a body of piece workers. The section speaks of ‘ rate,’ not ‘ amount,’ of weekly wages, which term is quite inapplicable in the case of a piece worker.

VARIED EARNING DIFFICULTY 1 . “ The earnings of the worker in question fluctuated from week to week. This was accounted for in part by the fact that sorting merino and half-breed wools is paid for at different rates, and it was also suggested l that, the energy of the worker would relate itself to the quantity of work in sight. It further appears that the piece w r orker is not tied down to fixed hours, as is a time worker, but' has periods off from time to time. At the hearing I put a question to the parties as to what was this worker’s ordinary rate of weekly wages without eliciting any solution. One can arrive at the average over a period, but this average would vary front period to period and is quite a different matter fr ■ ordinary weekly wage. “Now, w award provides a rate for wool sorters as time workers at 2s Id an hour, which amounts to £4 Ids 9d for a 45-hour week. This comes exactly within the words of subsection ;j as being ' The ordinary rate of weekly wages of any worker,’ and the worker is secured in the payment of this amount by sub-section 3 on the reduction of the weekly hours to 40. I am dealing here with the case of a full week’s work. As the award provides that only time worked is to be paid for, then, in the event of a full week not being worked, the time rate would be increased by 45-40. ’• Elasticity is given to this award by the provision of piecework, but this is coupled with the condition that the piece workers shall receive not less than the amount specified for time workers. The ‘ ordinary rate of weekly wages ’ of a wool sorter—for a full week—is clearly £4 13s 9d. but M'Coll has not been employed at a rate of weekly wages, and lias been earning considerably above the weekly wage; he is, therefore, outside the protecting arm of the legislature safeguarding rates of weekly wages, except lor the proviso, of course, that he must not receive less. INSUPERABLE OBSTACLE. “ But, assuming that the above construction of the Statute is not correct, an insuperable obstacle would still confront the plaintiff inspector. The first step in establishing his case is to prove what is ‘ the ordinary rate of weekly wages of the worker.’ And, as I have pointed out, the weekly earnings of the worker in question varied from week to week, and he cannot be said to have ‘an ordinary rate of weekly wages ’ or even a ‘ rate of weekly wages ’ at all. What a piece worker receives is a varying amount of weekly wages assessed on piecework, winch is dependent on the worked, the class of work (i.e., merino or halfbreod), and the worker’s diligence and energy; this latter item, from the evidence before me, is by no means an unvaryino- factor. The final matter for consideration is the amount of wages paid to the worker. Full slatomcnts

were supplied of earnings over threa 28 weekly periods, two of which related to the 45-hour week and the third to the 40-hour week. These statement* present quite an interesting study, but it is not necessary for me to comment on them beyond setting out the figures. The first period of 28 weeks is from November 25, 1935, to June 20, 1936, and the average weekly wage, less overtime, was £5 5s 7d, which gives a rat* of 30.56 pence an hour for the time actually worked. A 45-hour week, at this rate, gives £5 14s 8d per week, to which, for the purpose of comparison, is to he added the 10 per cent, restoration of 12s 9d—a total of £6 7s 6d, For the second period, from February 29, 1936, to August 29, 1936, the average wage was £5 _2s, and the rate for actual working time 30.29 pence an hour. A 45-hour week at this rata comes to £5 13s 7d, and, plus 10 per cent, restoration of 12s Bd, equals _£d 6s 3d. The'figures for the third period, from September 11, 1936, to March 26, 1937, when the 40-hour week was in, operation are: Weekly wage £6 5s od, actual working time 39.40 pence an hour, which tor a full week of 40 hours would give £6 11s 6d. “ These figures show that th* worker’s average weekly wages over tun period in question are higher than those received over the earlier _ periods, plus the 10 per cent, restoration, and also that the hourly rate has worked out considerably higher. How, then, can it be said that ‘ the_ ordinary rat* of weekly wage ’ of this worker, assuming pro hac vice that such express sion is applicable, has been reduced? I am of the opinion, therefore, for the above reasons, that no breach, of the award has been committed. Judgment must be given for the defendant comMr J. M. Paterson appeared for the defendant company.