MINIMUM WAGE

Greymouth Evening Star, 16 March 1934, Page 7

MINIMUM WAGE

IMPORTANT TEST QUESTION

DOES CUT APPLY ?

[per press association.]

WELLINGTON, March 16.

The Court of Appeal, to-day, is considering the question stated for its opinion by Mr Justice Frazer, of the Court of Arbitration, concerning the minimum wage payable to dressmaking apprentices, under the Factories Act, 1921-1922.

In July, 1933, the Christchurch Dress and Mantlemakers’ Union sued J. Ballantyne and Co. Ltd., for a penalty of £lO on the ground that defendants had paid apprentices 27/- per week instead of 30/- per week, the minimum rate fixed by the award and by the Factories Act, 1921-1922. Defendants claimed that they were entitled to deduct 10 per cent. from, the award rate of 30/- per week, by virtue of the general order of the Arbitration Court, 1931. reducing all awards by 10 per cent. The Magistrate, Mr. E. D. Mosley, held that the general 10 per cent, reduction did not apply to the minimum wages fixed also by statutes, such as the Factories Act, and gave judgment

in favour of the Union for 10/-, with costs. Ballantyne appealed against this decision on a point of law to the Court of Arbitration. The appeal was referred by that Court for the opinion of the Court of Appeal. Counsel for

the appellant are Messrs R. A. Young and H. J. Bishop, and for respondent, Mr K. G. Archer.

Opening the case for appellant, Mr Young stated that the question be-

fore the Court was one of considerable importance, as it directly concerned a very large number of factory workers in the Dominion. Since the passing of the Arbitration Court Amendment Act, 1932, few awards which have expired, have been renewed, and both employers and employees had had to refer to the provisions of the Factories Act for minimum rates of wages payable in the factories. In the present case, the award rate was 15/- per week during the first six months, rising at the end of three years to £2/2/4 a week. The Factories .Act provided a minimum of 10/- a week for the first year with annual increments o£ 5/until a wage of 30/- a week was reached. The employee in the present case had been engaged under the terms of the award at the rate of 15/a week.

Counsel contended that so long as the annual wage paid by appellant and other factory owners was not lower than the minimum prescribed by the Factories Act, appellant was not required to increase the weekly wage by annual increments of 5/-. The respondent Union contended that whatever was the wage at which the factory employee commenced work, the factory owner was required by statute to increase this wage every year, by the. amount of 5/weekly, until the wage of 30/. per week was reached. Legal argument is proceeding.