BREACH OF AWARD

Grey River Argus, 21 November 1944, Page 6

BREACH OF AWARD

GREY POWER BOARD CONVICTED.

Proceedings were taken by the Inspector of Awards, Mr H. S. Hurle, in the Magistrate’s Court before Mr A. A. McLachlan, S.M., yesterday, against the Grey Electric Power Board (Mr J. W. Hannan) for failin" to pay servicemen’s rates of wages to two employees, Alwyn Lemin and Kevin P. Coll, and a claim was lodged for a penalty of £lO for a breachof the G.E.F'.B. Electrical Workers’, Linesmen and Assistants’ Industrial Agreement, 1941. Mr Hurle explained that there was a claim for a penalty in respect of each employee, and there were also claims for wages, which w'ould depend on the decision of the Bench .as to whether there had been a breach of award. It was contended that the work of the two men was that which under the award was to be performed by a serviceman at a higher rate of pay. A serviceman received £6 10s a week, plus cost of living bonus, making a total of £7 Is 6d, whereas Lemin and Coll received 2s 9d an hour, which, plus bonuses, totalled £6 Os 6d a week. The award stated that a serviceman’s work was that of continually attending to all faults and repairs upon the reticulation and distributing systems. consumers’ installations and appliances. It was disputed by defendants that the men concerned came under the classification of servicemen. Both had been employed in the same class of work, so the evidence of only one should be sufficient. ' Alwyn Lemin, serviceman in the employ of the board, said he was paid 2s 9d an hour. His work was general repair work. He had repaired street lights and similar faults. Ninety per cent, of his work was the repairing of consumers’ installations. An employee' connected with consumers’ installations had to possess a wireman’s certificate. The outside staff did not require those qualifications.

To Mr Hannan: He had carried out wiring work for the board, in whose employ he had been for 18 months. T'he board’s inspectors now and again carried out work similar to that of witness. A man named Lynch was the only man classed as a serviceman by the board. Mr Hurle submitted that Coll and Lemin were employed at work that came within the classification of servicemen. Practically all their work consisted of repairing consumers’ installations and appliances. It did not matter what other men were doing. There was no other classification under the agreement which could apply to them. The men did work which was stated to be that done by a serviceman, and were entitled to £6 10s a week and bonuses which they did not get. “The defence of the board is that the definition of servicemen’s work does not cover that done by Lemin and Coll, said Mr Hannan. Lvncl• was the man the hoard regarded as serviceman, and the definit'oii in the award was inserted to cover *he duties canled out by him. He had had long sei vice with the board and was required to deal with calls that might be made at all times during the night, and to deal with those faults. For thos ■ services lie was ( paid a suemal rate, bes'des overtime. The fact that he got the highest wage under the award was because of his being available ar. night. Lynch was not a registered wireman, and if he found faults he could not deal with he could send for a wireman. ' The rate paid since the inception of the award to men doing the work of Lemin and Coll was the same as that covered by the Nelson-Marlborough award, and had never been questioned. Sinclair Trotter, the board’s engineer for the past 18 years, said the board’s first private agreement was in 1938. Employees other than linesmen were naid under the Nelson. Marlborough and Canterbury award. Lemin and Coll had been paid at a rate fixed by that award. No question had ever been raised by employees. The board had only one man, Lynch, as a serviceman, when the award was made. Lynch was at present incapacitated and M. Olsen was now serviceman. ■ These were the only men ’on the board’s payroll classified as servicemen. The clause in the agreement concerning servicemen vzas made with Lvnch in mind. Prior to the war the bulk of repairs to consumers' installations was carried out by private contractors.

To Mr Hurle: The men whom Lemin succeeded had always been paid 2s 9d an hour. Argument took place on the constructions which could be placed on the clause in the agreement defining a serviceman, the Magistrate finally stating that a reasonable interpretation would be that their • work included attending to consumers’ installations and appliances. “You won’t press for a penalty against the

Power Board which h.as been acting in good faith?’’ asked the Magistrate of Mr Hurle. who agreed that it would be sufficient to convict without penalty. The Power Board was found to be guilty on the charges of breaches of the award, no penalty being imposed, while with regard to the claims for back wages, judgment was entered for plaintiff in both cases, the amounts being £5l 19s 7d for Lemin, and £43 13s 7d for Coll. There were no costs.