WATERSIDERS SUED

Evening Star, Issue 22890, 23 February 1938, Page 3

WATERSIDERS SUED

ALLEGED BREACH DF AWARD WORK IN TEA HOUR REFUSED (Per United Press Association) WELLINGTON, Feb. 22. The first case of its kind in New Zealand was commenced in the Magistrate’s Court this afternoon when Grannaway and Co., Ltd.,' claimed a penalty of £5 from each of 12 waterside workers alleged to have refused to work in the tea hour between 5 and 6 o’clock when loading the Port Gisborne on January 13. The company alleges a breach of clause 198 of the New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Award, which provides that the men “ shall work during meal hours if required to do so, and, except as herein afterwards provided, shall be paid at the rate of double ordinary time for the full hour .(breakfast, dinner, tea or supper) if the ship or job is not finished during the meal hour. If the ship or job is finishing during the meal hour and the men work half an hour or less of such meal hour, the full hour shall be paid for. If more than half an hour of the meal hour is worked, and the ship or job is finishing during the meal hour, the full meal hour shall be paid for. Notice to work in the meal hour shall be given a-quar-ter of an hour before the time fixed for the commencement of the meal.”

The penalties are claimed under section 129 of the I.C. and A. Act, and any penalty recovered is for the use of the Crown. ' PLAINTIFF’S CASE. Mr Shorland said the ship was being loaded on January 13 with frozen meat and the loading was not expected to be finished that day. After outlining the system of engaging waterside labour, the object of which, he said, was to apportion the work to the more eligible workers, Mr Shorland said the defendants were part of a No. 1 gang engaged by the plaintiffs to load the No. 1 hatch with frozen meat. The smallest amount of time must elapse between the time the meat left the refrigerating store and the time it went into the hold. Appropriate orders were given the men to work overtime. Later in the afternoon, Mr Shorland continued, it became apparent that it, would not be possible to load all the meat by 10 p.m.. and it became necessary to invoke clause 19 of the award, section B of which provided that the men should work during meal hours if required to do so. At 6 p.m. the men would have been allowed an hour for a meal. It was intended that they should go and should be replaced by another gang. The result of their refusal to work was that at 10 p.m. there was still meat on the wharf and the crew had to be told off to work. Next morning the gang claimed that they should be paid for the time the crew had put }n. and there was some dispute over that. THE DEFENCE. Mr Hardy Boys made four legal submissions. The' first was that, if the men were to be ordered back to work overtime from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. the order must be given not later than 4 p.m. If they were ordered back for the tea hour, the order must be given not later than 4.45 p.m., but the only provision in the whole award under which the men could be required to work both the meal hour and overtime was contained in clause 15, namely, that when it was expected to finish a ship or a job at; 6 p.m., or immediately after, the order to work to a finish must be given at 4 o’clock. The second submission was that the order given shortly before 4 o’clock constituted a bilateral contract to work from 6 to 10 o’clock. That could not be affected by anything said at 4.45 p.m. Thirdly, the employer waived compliance with the order to work the meal hour. He acquiesced in the men’s refusal to work by accepting their labour after 6 o clock and again next morning. . The magistrate: I am not at all impressed with that line of argument. It was still valid to carry out a prior contract to work after 6 o’clock. The fourth submission, that the breach was trivial, would be made if it was desired to hear the evidence of the men, said Mr Hardy Boys. Mr Shorland submitted that an award affected the ordinary legal relationship between master and servant only in respect of matters it, provided for. There was clear necessity for the employer to provide for emergencies as they arose. The purpose of clause 15, to which Mr Hardy Boys had referred, was to provide that work should be carried on to a finish. As for clause 19, if the submission of the defence were correct, there would he no need for it in the award at all, ~ „ , . _ , The magistrate said that at first glance it seemed that the defence raised was unanswerable. He would examine the legal question and decide whether it would be necessary to hear evidence for the defence. „