SAWMILL WORKERS

Greymouth Evening Star, 16 March 1937, Page 7

SAWMILL WORKERS

HOLIDAY PAY QUESTION WEST COAST TEST CASE A test case, of importance to the sawmilling industry on the West Coast, involving the interpretation of the holiday clause of the Westland Timber Yards and Sawmill Employees’ Award, was heard in the Magistrate’s Court at Greymouth, to-day, before Mr Raymond' Ferner, S.M., when Henry Campbell claimed £1 from the Omoto Sawmilling Company, Ltd., al- ( legedly due to him as payment for the Boxing Day holiday, 1936, under the provisions of the award. Mr T. F. Brosnan appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr J. W. Hannan for the defendant company. Mr Brosnan said that the claim for £1 referred to wages for Boxing Day, 1936, and was based on one term of the Westland Timber Yards and Sawmill Employees’ Award, which was made last year. There were a great number of cases in the same position, and a decision in the one before the Court would dispose of all of them. The particular clause of the award affecting the action was 4a: “The following holidays shall be given and

paid for at ordinary rates: —Christmas Day, Boxing Day, New Year’s Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, Anzac Day, Labour Day, and King’s Birthday.” The Union claimed that those named days were to be given as holidays and paid for, and if work was done on any of them, then it was to be paid! for at double time. He would also draw attention to Clause 2a of the Award, which stated: “Except as otherwise provided herein, the hours of work shall be 40 per week, which shall so far as possible be worked on the first five days of the week, and not more than eight hours in any one day, such hours -to be continuous, except for lunch time.” It was quite clear, from that six days of the week were working days, but that, so far as possible, the work should be done on the first five days. Boxing Day, 1936, fell on a Saturday, and thus on an ordinary working day. Plaintiff was employed as a tailer-out, for which the award rate was 2/6 an hour, and that was how the claim of £1 was arrived at. Plaintiff said that he had been employed by the Omoto Sawmilling Company for the past seven years and eight months. The mill closed for the last Christmas holidays on December 22, and resumed on January 11. So far as witness knew, no work was done on Boxing Day. He had not been paid for Boxing Day, but had been paid for Christmas and New Year’s Days. As the result of not receiving pay for Boxing Day, the matter had been placed in the hands of the Union Secretary, and he had been negotiating ever since. Under the old award holidays were not paid for, but under the neV award employees were to be paid for eight days in the year.

To Mr Hannan': The mill closed down on the Tuesday, and he worked on the Wednesday and Thursday, on repair work on the tram. He actually worked 32 hours in the week and' was paid for Christmas Day, so that he was, paid for 40 hours in the week. His regular work was 40 hours a week. He did not make a personal objection when he did not receive pay for Boxing Day, as they had the proper channels through which to make such complaints. To Mr Brosnan: The work I did on Wednesday and Thursday was repair work.

Frederick Lovell Turley, secretary of the Westland Timber Workers’ Union, said that he was an assessor at the making of the award, and the position in regard to holidays was that, by legislation, certain provisions were made for holidays for factory •workers, but they/did not apply to the men in the sawmill yards or bush. Certain concessions were made by the Union to the employers, such as a 48hour week for repair work, and for drivers in the loading of boats, and the employers, in return, granted eight paid holidays in the year, to cover all members of the Union. The holiday clause in the award was clearer than any other similar clause in other awards, and in fact, he believed that of a holiday fell on a Sunday, the members of the Union would be still entitled to payment. When the award was made and the wages came back to the 1931 standard, the sawmillers had to get an increased price for their timber, and in doing so they definitely used the argument that they had to pay for eight holidays in the year. There were over 1400 men employed in the sawmills in the district, which meant £ll,OOO holiday pay annually, which the public was paying. The award provided definitely for a six-day week and for a forty-hour week. The men could work six days a week for three consecutive weeks, provided that the hours for the four weeks did not total more than 160.

To Mr Hannan: It is definitely a six-day week, but of 40 hours.

To Mr Brosnan: If the company worked on a Saturday which was a holiday, they would have to pay double time.

To the S.M.: Saturday can be worked at ordinary rates of pay to complete a 40-hour week. This concluded the case for the plaintiff. John Martin Bunt said that he was an accountant for the defendant company. The mill worked normally from Monday to Friday each week, and any work, other than special repairs, done after those five days was paid for as overtime. That was the practice in all of the mills with which witness was connected. There might he occasions on which men who did not make up their 40 hours in the first five days might make up their time on the Saturday. To Mr Brosnan: I act in a similar capacity for Parker Bros. I found out recently that they paid for Boxing Day—wrongly, I believe, but because the union secretary told them that they had to pay. He was not aware of it, but no doubt the paid holidays were a factor in the increased price of timber.

IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE. Mr Hannan said that the case involved a very important principle, and would probably mean the payment of

£lOOO for the one day. The defendant contended that the interpretation to be given to the clause was that if the holiday fell on an ordinary working day payment had to be made for it, but if it fell on a day which was not normally a working day, then it did not have to be paid for. If payment had to be made for a day which was not a working day, then it would mean that men would be paid for a 48-hour week when they were working a 40hour week. If Christmas Day fell on a Saturday and Boxing Day on a Sunday, then they would be paid for a 56hour week.

The S.M. said that, so far as could see, neither the award or the Act exempted Saturday as a working day. Mi* Hannan said that, nevertheless, a five-day week of 40 hours was laid down, thus, if a man was paid £1 a day he got £ 5 a week. If the union’s interpretation was given effect to. however, he would be paid £6 when the holiday fell on a Saturday and £7 a week when two holidays fell on Saturday and Sunday. The S.M.: It occurs to me that Saturday is a working day. If the men could not, for some reason, work on Monday, then they could work on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Mr Hannan submitted that Saturday was not an ordinary working day —it was an extraordinary working day, as it was specifically laid down that so far as possible the work was to £>e done on the first five days of the week. After quoting authorities in support of his submissions, Mr Hannan said that the whole gist of the matter was that if a man was going to lose any ordinary pay through a holiday, then he was entitled to be paid for that holiday, but if he was not going to lose any ordinary pay, then he should not be paid for the holiday.

Mi- Brosnan said that the award was clear that Saturday was not excluded as an ordinary working day, and there was no limitation on what a man might earn. The only limitation was on the working hours. There might be a day in the middle of a week when there was no work, and then a man would be entitled to work on the Saturday. The S.M.: Here you have a man working for and being paid for 40 hours. Was it the intention, when the award was being framed, that he should be made another gratituous payment for another day?

Mr Brosnan submitted that it was. It would have been quite easy, he said, to have excluded Saturdays and Sundays at the time. By statute, Anzac Day had to be treated as a 'Sunday, and yet it was significant that it was included in the award as a named holiday, just as Boxing Day was a named holiday. There were no words in the award which justified an employer not making payment. He submitted that the award was clear that the eight named holidays were to be paid for in the year, and that there was to be no whittling down. In regard to those holidays, sawmill workers were in the same position as clerical workers, for instance, who were entitled to a week or a fortnight holiday in the year. The S.M. said that the question involved seemed to be important and very interesting, and his decision would be reserved. If counsel had heard of any similar litigation recently, he invited them to submit authorities on it.