FACTORY WAGE RATE

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXIV, Issue 81, 17 March 1934, Page 9

FACTORY WAGE RATE

Minimum for Apprentices CASE FOR APPEAL COURT | By Telegraph—Press Association. WELLINGTON, March IG. The Court of Appeal to-day considered a question stated for the opinion by Mr Justice Frazer, of tile Court of Arbitration, concerning the minimum wage payable to dressmaking apprentices under the Factories Act. .1921-1922. In July, .1933, the Christchurch Dress and Mantlemakers’ Union sued J. Ballantyne and Co., Ltd., for a penalty of £lO on the ground that the defendants had paid apprentices 27/- per week instead of 30/- per week, the minimum rate fixed by the award and by the Factories Act, 1921-1922. The defendants claimed that they were entitled to deduct 10 per cent from the award rate of 30/- per week by virtue of the general order of the Arbitration Court in 1931 reducing all awards by 10 per ceut. The magistrate, Mr E. D Mosley, held that the general 10 per cent, reduction did not apply to minimum wages fixed also by statutes, such as the Factories Act, and gave judgment in favour of the union for 10/- and costs. Ballantyne and Co. appealed against this decision on a point of law to the Court of Arbitration. The appeal was referred by that Court for the opinion of the Court of Appeal. Counsel for the appellant are Messrs R. A. Young and H. J. Bishop, and for th? respondent Mr K. G. Archer. CASE FOR APPELLANT. Opening the case for the appellant, Mr Young stated that the question before the Court was one of considerable importance, as it directly concerned a very large number of factory workers in the Dominion. Since the passing of the Arbitration Court Amendment Act, 1932, few awards which had expired had been renewed and both employers and employees had had to refer to the provisions of the Factories Act for minimum rates of wages payable in factories. In the present case the award rate was 15/- a week during the first six mouths, rising at the end of three years to £2 2/4 a week. The Factories Act provided a minimum of 10/. a week for the first year with annual increments of 5/- until a wage of 30/- a week was reached. The employee in the present case had been engaged under the terms of the award at 15/-. Counsel contended that so long as the annual wage paid by the appellant and other factory owners was not lower thart the minimum prescribed by the Factories Act the appellant was not required to increase the weekly wage by annual increments of 5/-. The respondent union contended that 'whatever wa. the wage at which a factory employee commenced work the factory owner was required by statute to increase this wage every year by an amount of 5/- weekly until a wage of 30/- a week was reached. RESPONDENT’S CASE. Mr Archer, counsel for the respondent union, opening the case for the union, stated that the practice for which the union was striving in the present appeal had been observed by the Court of Arbitration over the whole of the last decade. The Court of Arbitration had always held that wages should be increased each year by a definite annual increment being added to the wage at which an employee commenced work. He submitted legal argument to show that the Factories Act, 1921-22, supported this contention. The Court did not call upon counsel for the appellant ix> reply, giving judgment for the appellant. The Chief Justice stated that the Factories Act provided only the minimum rate of wages, and that under this rate the employees concerned would be entitled in their fourth year to 25/- a week, they being paid in accordance with the award at the rate of 30/- a week less 10 per cent, reduction applying to all awards. As this amount was not less than the ■minimum provided, by the Factories Act, the wage was liable to 10 per cent, deduction claimed by the appellant. Other members of the Court, Mr Justice Herdman, Mr Justice Blair and Mr Justice Kennedy, concurred in this decision. The Court adjourned until Monday.