ARBITRATION COURT

Evening Star, Issue 23563, 30 April 1940, Page 6

ARBITRATION COURT

INTERPRETATIONS SOUGHT DRIVERS’ UNION An application by the New Zealand Motor and Horse Drivers’ Union for an interpretation of clause 2a of its award was heard by Mr J. A. Gilmour, S.M., when the sitting of the Arbitration Court was; resumed this morning. The inspector of awards (Mr W. H. Cal.dwallade'r) explained that the point in dispute concerned employers who did carrying work for local bodies, which came under the 40-hour week, employing the same men in ordinary carrying work coming under the 44 hours arrangement, oh. occasions when the special work waa not possible, say, in wet weather. -

Mr H. Brown, for the union,, contended that the drivers concerned were substantially engaged in this local body work, not in general carrying work, and that the provisions covering the former class or work must apply to those drivers. While engaged in City Corporation work, said Mr Brown, these drivers were under the control of the corporation’s agents and received instructions from them as to the class of goods to be carried. Mr . J. M, Paterson, for the employers, contended' that as these drivers were employed by firms engaged in the carrying industry, end not by the City Corporation or other local body, these employers were entitled to use the drivers for ordinary -carrying work when - occasion arose. The “ house clause ” was never meant to apply to this class of work. Mr Gilmour intimated that he would reserve his decision in the matter. LABOURERS' UNION. Yesterday afternoon the Otago Labourers; and Related Trades’ Industrial Union of Workers, whichwas represented by Mr B. Barrison, sought from the court an interpretation of two clauses in its award. The first question was whether a petrol-' driven ,hoe came within the meaning of power-driven tools, hut after Mr Harrison had addressed the court Mr M. R. Skipworth, who appeared for the employers, the City Council, said that the council had agreed to the union’s interpretation. The second question was whether workers engaged in marking out and planting out Tieds in the afforestation branch of the reserves department came under the scope of the clause which stated that “ mien employed marking out or planting out beds be paid not less than- 2s 6Jd an hour.” After hearing argument from both sides the court reserved its decision.