TIMBER-YARD WORKERS

Evening Star, Issue 22890, 23 February 1938, Page 10

TIMBER-YARD WORKERS

QUESTION OF STATUS IMPORTANT RULING AWAITED [Per United Press Association.] CHRISTCHURCH, February 23. An appeal against the decision of Mr Levvey, S.M., the result of which will establish an important ruling on the status of timber-yard workers, was heard by Mr Justice Nbrthcroft in the Supreme ■ Court to-day.: Charles Edward Otley, manager of ,C. E. Otley Ltd., was convicted and fined £2 by Mr Levvey for a breach of - the ’ Factory Amendment, Act, 1936, section 14, in that, being the occupier of a factory, he failed to pay timber stackers and yard labourers for the Labour Day holiday. For' the .appellant Mr J. F. B. Stephenson said the question was whether, timber stackers and other men employed hr a timber yard were factory workers within the meaning of the Factories Act. It was admitted that there was a* timber drying kiln- in the yard, bat the men did not go into the kiln or into the factory. “The case is of importance,” said Mr Stephenson, “ to proprietors of timber yards throughout the Dominion, and may even extend to other industries. _ “ If this case is of such wide importance,” suggested Mr Justice Northcroft, “ might it not be desirable to refer it to the Full Court, ‘which will be sitting shortly?” , “Timber-yard employers would welcome a ,Fuli Court decision,’.’ said Mr Stephenson, “ as it is of very great imEortance to' them. It is a test case—the rst of, its kind that has ; been brought. It affects, not only timber yards, but all other industries that employ, yard labourers. ,My argument will be that a factory must be a building, not, for instance, an open field. The Act specifies an office as a building or place, but I will submit that a place must be held to be a building.” . Mr Justice Northcroft said he. would hear argument and consider’ jat-er whether the case should ,go to the 'Full Court. : ■'