OVERTIME PAY

Grey River Argus, 20 December 1940, Page 10

OVERTIME PAY

WORKERS’ CLAIMS

Full Court’s Favourable Decision [Per Press Association] | DUNEDIN, December 19. The Full Court gave a decision this morning in an appeal from the Christchurch Magistrate’s -conviction of Booth MacDonald, Ltd., for failing to pay proper remuneration to a worker employed on Christmas and Boxing Days, whose award rate was 2s 4d per hour, but whose continuous employment, night work for six months, entitled him to an extra 3s per shift, bringing the daily rate to 225.

The Inspector of Factories at Christchurch had prosecuted Booth. MacDonald and Company, Ltd., for failing to pay a proper rate of remuneration to a worker employed on Christmas Day and Boxing Day. /recording to the award the worker’s rate of pay was 2s 4d an hour, but he had been continuously employed for six months on night shift, and was therefore entitled to an extra 3s a shift, making his daily rate 22s a day. ’The Magistrate held that the worker was entitled to receive 22s a day for Christmas Day and Boxing Day. He entered a conviction against Booth, MacDonald and Company, Ltd., and ordered the firm to pay costs, 13s. The contention of the appellant, who was represented by Mr. L. J. Hensley, of Christchurch, was that payment of the extra shift remuneration should have been disregarded, and that only 19s a day should have been the rule for the two days. Mr. F. B. Adams appeared on behalf of the Labour Department. 1 The Chief Justice said that in his opinion, the award contemplated the case on an individual, who, being employed on night shift during Christmas week, was entitled to 22s as for an ordinary working day. The appeal must be dismissed. Judge Kennedy and Judge Northcroft concurred, the former stating the section applied to an individual worker, not to a normal, or hypothetical, worker. In another earlier case, a day shift worker named Grant, employed by the Roslyn Woollen Mills, sued the company for extra payment of 3s a shift, as Messrs Ross and Glendining, Ltd., were at that time working two shifts. This claim was dismissed by the Magistrate; but an appeal to the Supreme Court was upheld by Mr. Justice Kennedy. The company then decided to appeal to the Court of Appeal; but as another employee was also entering an action for the extra 3s a shift, it was decided, on the remendation of Mr. Justice Kennedy, to hear the second action before the Full Court, the parties agreeing to accept the decision as final. Mr. J. C. Mowat, for the Union, said the case was of considerable importance, as it was a test case brought to establish the right of extra payment for shift work to a very large number of employees. He understood that the decision would apply to other woollen mills throughout New Zealand, and it was estimated that the amount involved in extra wages in New Zealand was between £75,000 and £lOO,OOO. He thought this estimate was, however, open to question. The particular suspension order which applied to the present case had been issued under the Emergency Regulations Act, 1939. The defendant company denied that its em ployees were in this instance engaged on shift work, and the claim actually depended on the definition of shift work. That was the point at issue. Mr. J. M. Paterson, for the company, said the claim really meant that because one set of workers in the mill were employed at night, another set whose work was not affected in any way, was entitled to receive 3s a shift extra.

The Chief Justice: You say that' day workers and night workers are getting 3s a shift for doing nothing, as they are doing precisely the same work as before.

Mr. Paterson said that was his point. Either the mills had to cease night work, and work normal hours, or else pay another £75,000 or £lOO.000 a year, and ask permission to pass on the extra cost.

The Chief Justice: Exactly. Well, why not? It is forming part of a vicious spiral, I know, but there it

The question of what was meant by “shift” was discussed at length by their Honours and Mr. PatersonMr. Paterson said that the suspension order had been wretchedly drawn up and Mr. Justice Kennedy agreed with this remark.

Mr. Paterson said that 'he had searched the Statutes of England. Australia and New Zealand, but had been unable to discover any helpful reference to what constituted a “shift.”

The Chief Justice said the Court had not made the law. They couici .not alter the words of the order, however unreasonable they might seem .to be. He would not say that they necessarily were in this case.

Mr. Mowat said that if the order did hot bear th,e meaning which the Minister for Labour intended, ’it was his place to have amended it. The Chief Justice said that the Court would consider its decision, and endeavour to give judgment early.