Arbitration Court

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVI, Issue 86, 27 March 1926, Page 5

Arbitration Court

Legal Holiday Question breach of award committed NO PENALTY IMPOSED. The Arbitration Court sitting was continued at Napier yesterday, as reported in the “Tribune.” On the f Mench were His Honour, Mr. Justice Frazer, and Messrs. W. Scott, employers’ representative, and A. L. Monteith, workers’ representative. The initial case was one in which Mr P. H. Kinsman proceeded against Blythes’ Ltd., of Napier, for a breach of the Retail Shop Assistants’ Award through failure to observe January 22, 1926, the Anniversary Dav of Wellington Province, as a holiday as required by the award. All the shops in Napier remained closed on the day in question, and the case was brougnt simply to obtain an interpretation of certain words in the award. The case arose through a section which provides for the substitution of another day for Wellington. Anniversary Day and Easter Saturday holidays if desired by the employers, subject to the approval of the Union. In the case in question the Napier Retailers’ Association suggested to the Union that People’s Day of the Hawke’s Bay Spring Show should be observed in lieu of Anniversary Day. It was claimed by the defence that the Union made no reply to this suggestion and the shops consequently remained open. Mr. B. L. Hammond pointed out that the decision of the Court was being awaited with interest and the clause also applied to Easter Satur4lay, which fell due next Saturday. Legal argument at considerable length was heard on the question of interpretation of the clause in the award relating to substitution. The Court adjourned in order to consider its decision. This was later given as under:— Y-KEGOTIATIOaS not completed. “Clause 11 (a) includes Anniversary Day among the full holidoys to be observed in the Wellington Industrial District, oT which Hawke’s Bay is a part. Clause 11 (b), however, adds this provision: ‘ln any locality in which any of the above named holidays are not customarily observed, it shall be lawful for an employer by agreement with the union to substitute another day for any such holiday not so observed.’ The Napier employers wished to substitute another day for Anniversary Day. which admittedly is not customarily observed as a holiday in Hawke’s Bay. Owing to some misunderstanding, the negotiations with the union did not reach finality, and the shops of the Napier firms bound by the award were kept open on Anniversary "Day, though no substituted holiday had been agreed upon at that time. AGREEMENT NECESSARY. “The Court is of opinion that the intention of Clause 11 (b) is to enable existing customs to be preserved. It in *u a form agreed upon by the parties, excepting that the Court struck out the word ‘generally’ and substituted the word ‘customarily.’ The clause, however, contemplates an employer agreeing with the union on a substituted day before he keeps his shop open on a specified award holiday, lie has an unfettered right to close his shop on the award holiday, and to keep it open on some other day (not an award holiday) that is generally observed as a holiday in the district. If he wishes to keep open on the award holiday, he must first come to an agreement with S the union on the matter of the substituted day. The union has in that case an unfettered right to say whether it will agree to another day being substituted. The employer, in the event o. the union insisting on a substituted day that is unsuitable to him, can then decide whether he will observe the award holiday or the day that the union is willing to have substituted for ‘ ’ BREACH COMMITTED. “The point does not arise directly out of the present case, but it was suggested that a union might hold over dealing with a proposal to substitute another day for an award holiday until it was too lato to enable anything to be done. The wording of the clause is not sufficiently wide to enable the Court to deal with such a situation. It simply provides that an agreement with the union must be arrived at as a condition precedent to any substitution of holidays. Any further provision for preserving existing customs musi await the making of a new award. “In the present case a breach has been committed, but in the circumstances no penalty will be awarded. A MOTOR SERVICE CASE. The only other matter that was to come before the Court was a dispute between the Napier Motor Vehicles Union and the A.A.P.AV Motor Service Napier, the A.A.R.D. Taxi Seivice, Napier, the De Luxe Motor Ser vice Napier, Hawke’s Bay Motor Co., Napier, Whitfield’s Motor Service, Napier, Hastings Motor Co., Graham and Gebbie, Hastings, Newrick’a Taxi Service, Hastings, and Nimon and Sons’ Bus Service. Havelock North. > After the Court had conferred with the advocates this case was adjourned sine die in view of a probable conference between the disputing parties.