HOLIDAYS DISPUTE

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 22593, 23 March 1948, Page 6

HOLIDAYS DISPUTE

£30,000 INVOLVED WATERFRONT WORK APPEAL COURT HEARING (P.A.) WELLINGTON, March 22. The Court of Appeal today commenced hearing the proceedings taken out by the New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Industrial Union against the New Zealand Waterside . Employers’ Association, the Wellington Harbour Board and the Waterfront Industry Commission to determine the date on which waterside workers became entitled to their first annual holidays under the Annual Holidays Act, 1944. The annual Holidays Act, 1944, provides that the employment of workers for the purpose of qualifying for their holidays should be deemed to commence on December 1, 1943. It also provides that the Minister of Labour should approve the conditions upon which workers employed on the waterfront should be entitled to their annual holidays.

Order Issued by Minister

On July 24, 1944, the Minister of Labour made an order providing that the commencing date of the employment of waterside workers for holiday purposes should be the first day of the pay week nearest August 1, 1944. The question which the Court is considering is whether waterside workers should be entitled to count their employment from December 1, 1943, for the computation of their holidays instead of from August 1, 1944, as provided in the Minister's order.

These proceedings originally came before the Chief Justice, Sir Humphrey O’Leary, at Wellington on December 13, 1947. and were then removed by him to the Court of Appeal for argument and consideration. On the Bench are the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Kennedy, Mr. Justice Finlay and Mr. Justice Gresson. Mr. M. J. Gresson and Mr. T. A. Gresson, Christchurch, are anoearing for the union, Mr. J. F. B, Stevenson, Wellington, for the Employers’ Association and the Wellington Harbour Board, and Mr. T. P. Cleary, Wellington, for the commission. Widespread Effect of Question

Mr. T. A. Gresson, opening the case for the union, said the ouestion before the Court was an important one affecting the whole of the waterside industry and hence indirectly affecting all employers and employees. In its financial aspect alone it involved upwards of £30,000 and it indirectly involved the validity or otherwise of the order of the Minister of Labour of July 24, 1944.

Briefly put, the argument for the union was that the Minister’s order was not an order made for the purpose of fixing a date for the commencement of the computation of the holiday period, but was made for internal administrative purposes only, and was not intended to affect the rights to holidays acquired by watersiders by virtue of their labour between December 1, 1943, and July 1, 1944. If however, the Court considered that it was intended to the contrary, then the order could not stand in view of the fixation of the date of commencement by the Act itself. Mr. Gresson also stated that originally the Railways Department had been a party to the proceedings, but it did not intend to take any part in the argument before the Court and would accept the judgment of the Court. Legal argument is proceeding.