LORRY DRIVERS’ HOURS

Hawera Star, Volume L, 1 December 1930, Page 8

LORRY DRIVERS’ HOURS

EMPLOYMENT ON DAI it Y WORE

COMPETITION WITH CENERAL CARRIERS.

A question of interpretation o, a clause of the Creameries, Cheese, Butter factories and Dairy Employees’ iward was prought before the Arbitration Court at New Plymouth on Friday. Mr. Justice Frazer presided and hud associated with him as assessors Messrs. W. Cecil Prime (employers) and A. L. Monteith (employees). The question at issue was the hours of work for lorry drivers. Mr. R. I'u'ton submitted that it was unfair that, a carrier employed by dairy companies should, m addition to the dairy company work, do carting in competition wHli general carters and jet be allowed, if held to be governed by the dairy award, up to 60 hours a ueek in t.i£ case of a cheese factory as opposed to the 43 hours a week allowed to genoral carriers. Wages were fixed under the dairy award and hours were uot. After bringing dairy produce into town, some lorries took general goods back. His Hnour said that as long as the dairy carter did not go outside the factory work he presumed that there was no objection. . Mr. Fulton; That is so. Some dairy companies, he mentioned, conducted co-operative stores and used the lorries to deliver goods, etc. Jn other cases manure was purchased and deliveied. This was in competition with general carrier*. .. Mr. Dull', for Uic Employers Union, staled that the employers .did not admit, that drivers were working as suggested by the unon. The question hail been thrashed out at the Conciliation Council and it was quite agreed that as long as drivers wore employed by dairy companies on their work the hours in the dairy award applied. _ His Honour stated that the drivers award provided for the intermediate man who did both factory and general carting. If a carrier took manure to suppliers or did work in connection with a dairy company’s s;tore, the employers thought that lie should still come under the Dairy Award, said Mr. DuffAfter a brief consultation the judgment of the court was outlined as follows by His Honour. (1) Jf a driver were employed by a dairy company in carting produce to and from the factory, and factory supplies to the 'factory, and generally doing carting work in connection with operations as- a dairy factory, the driver was governed as to hours by the Dairy Award. , The only way in which the general drivers’ award affected these drivers was that it iixed the wages. Secondly: If a man were not employed on dairy factory work and was simply doing general carting, he came under the general drivers’ award foi all purposes. ■ ■ . Thirdly: If a man were employed by a dairy factory and his duties included the conveying of general merchandise to outside persons, whether they were suppliers of the factory or not, and carting to and from a general store run by the dairy company,, then he would" come under the special provisions of the general drivers’ award applying to drivers employed, bv dairj companies. Therefore the must not work more than 48 hours a week, or nine hours a day without the payment of overtime. The general award made certain concessions in these instances and there was nothing in the. dairy award to give-anv greater concessions. As Mr. Duff had mentioned the Auckland award his Honour explained that the drivers in question were there included in the dairy award because the parties had agreed to that course. The court had •no power to read into an award foreign matter not mentioned there. The Auckland people had realised that if they wanted that con-, cession special provision would have to be made in the award. This had not been done in this instance.