CLOSED FOR HOLIDAYS

Evening Star, Issue 23128, 30 November 1938, Page 15

CLOSED FOR HOLIDAYS

BREACHES OF AWARD CLAIMED JUDGMENT FOR FOOTWEAR COMPANY IPke United Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, November 29. Reserved judgments in cases of interest to the footwear industry -yjmra delivered to-day by Mr G. G. Chisholm, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court. Judgment for the defendant was given in. each case where claims were made against Suckling Bros. Ltd., hy the New Zealand Federated Footwear Trade Industrial Association of Workers and Alfred James Cummings. The union alleged a breach of the award, and the plaintiff Cummings alleged a breach of an apprenticeship contract. In the first case it was alleged that the defendant company failed to pay wages to Vera Thompson, employed as an. assistant, when the factory was closed for the Christmas holidays. The judgment stated that evidence had been given that 46 assistants had been dismissed for the holidays after notice had been duly given. “ The question to be decided,” the Magistrate said, “ is whether there was a genuine dismissal or whether it was a subterfuge to avoid payment for the holidays. The company appears to have made the dismissal effective, and' I think it must stand, except that it may be invalidated by the motive. The defendant led conclusive evidence of the collapse of the industry between. July and Christmas of last year. This showed that the closing of the factory had been considered much earlier, but' whatever weight may be attached to motives, I think that no breach of the award has been proved.” ' Judgment was entered for the defendant with costs. _ The other claim was based on allegations by Cummings, one of several apprentices employed by the factory. The plaintiff alleged that a deduction had been made from his wages during the holidays, and that because the reason given for closing was not bona fide the deduction was not legal. The plaintiff contended that_ the nature of the plant did not justify closing for cleaning and repairs, and that the work done was negligible and did not warrant closing. “ I am satisfied from the evidence that an annual overhaul is a desirable practice,” the Magistrate said in his decision, “ and that it is best done when the factory is closed. That the employers purport to dismiss assistants at the same time does not seem to me to affect the position.” Judgment was given for the defendant, with costs.