TYPOGRAPHERS’ HOLIDAYS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCVI, Issue 14428, 19 July 1907, Page 4

TYPOGRAPHERS’ HOLIDAYS.

THE QUESTION OF PAYMENT. A TEST CASE. Arbitration Court yesterday, Lyttelton Times” Co., tho 1 ress Co. and Messrs Whitcomb© :t c .i-'Orobs were cited by the Inspector ox Awards, under the award of tho Canterbury Typographical Union of \\ orkers, for paying insufficient wages, and tor deducting wages for certain holidays. Mr, Wright appeared for tho prosecution, and Mr Russell for tho respondents.

It was explained that tho cases referred to affected both jobbing workers and linotype operators. Air Wright said that tho Department had brought the cases in order to get a definite ruling as to whether holidays should bo paid for under such awards as tho one under which tho action wae brought. The case affected the _ whole of the printing trade of Christchurch. The section under which the action was brought was as f ollows • —Any journeyman, journeywoman or apprentice required to work on Sunday, Christmas Day or Good hnday shall bo paid double rates of pay • and if required to work on Easter Monday, the birthday of the ruling Sovereign, Show Day. Labour Day or Anniversary Day, shall bo paid at the rate of time and a half. The week’s work shall consist of six days of eight hours each. Overtime on any day to be one-third extra.

Sinco the making of the award, seren years ago, said Mr Wright, these holidays had not been paid for at all, the employees doing no work, and having their wages reduced accordingly. On Anniversary Day of last year, a request -was sent jn by the various weekly hands in the city printing offices making a demand to be paid for that day. Ihe demand was not met. The minimum wage was fixed at £3 per Week, the week to consist of forty-eight hours. The engagement was a weekly and not an hourly one, and, that being so, no deduction could be made from n l l , n ™ um . wage for holidays allowed. Mr Justice Cooper’s judgment in the action of the Canterbury Typographers v. Whitooiube and Tombs clearly laid that down. After the making of the award in 1900, the Factories °Act of 1901 was passed, and provided that tliG Lours of labour of boys under eighteen and of women in , factories should be forty-eight per week. To bring everyone into lino, therefore, the employers reduced the week to fortyfive hours and the wages correspondingly by a sixteenth. The case came before Mr Justice Cooper in Septemher, 1902, and ho stated that the letter of tho_ award had been broken by the reduction of the hours and the wages. By extending that reasoning, it must appear that_ holidays must be paid for. The forty-eight hours stipulation did uot iriipose any compulsion o' employment_ for the full time: it simply fixed the limit beyond which overtime must bo paid. Another argument was that Sundays were classed with the other holidays, and no one would suggest that a deduction should bo made because no work was done on that day. Mr Wright quoted a number of other awards in connection with the printing trade in other centres, all of which definitely set out that holidays should be paid for at the regular rate when no work was done and at the extra rates if work was carried on. Mr Russell said that he admitted the facts. Mr Russell said that he would prove that wages for holidays never had been paid; and when the award was drawn up no one ever suggested that the point was in dispute. It never had been disputed during the forty years in which printing had been carried, on in Canterbury. G. H. Whitcombe, a member of the firm of Whitcombe arid Tombs, stated that he had been connected with the printing trade for twenty-six years. It had never been the cue tom ire pay for holidays. The holidays were always given, but the question of paying for them was never raised till eighteen months ago. No claim was made for payment when the industrial agreement was drawn up. To Mr Wright: The only jourueywoma i\ in Christchurch was in his establishment, and she was paid by piece; there were no weekly-paid journeywomen. If she had to work overtime she would be paid at the same rate, a shilling a thousand ens. W. S. Smith, managing director of Smith, Anthony and Co., said that he had been in business in the_ printing trade in Christchurch, for thirty-three years. From time to time his men were paid for holidays, according to the state of business. There never had been a. claim for holidays until Easter Monday, when the compositors put In a charge for their time. The men told him that ■ they did not like doing it but had been instructed by the Union to apply for payment. When the industrial agreement was drawn up no one contemplated a demand for payment. To Mr Wright: The occasional payments for hoi.days were merely an act of grace to the men, with whom the firm was on friendly terms. The men were given a small Christmas box; but he did not recognise that they had any claim to that present. The,printing business had been both good and bad. The amount of work had been good, but prices were low on account of the competition from small bueiimss'-s. W. C. Aiken, director of Willis and Aiken, Ltd., said that he had been in the printing trade for over thirty years. Roth weekly men and piece workers had kept the holidays named, and had never till lately been paid nor had asked payment for them. On the last occasion of his paying the men he returned uiio dockets to two men, and asked them why, in the face of the Union’s instruction, they had not claimed for the holiday. They rented that they had not worked, and that they refused to ho a party to such robbery’. H. D. Pino, foreman for the “ Press ” Company, said that ho had been a printer in Christchurch for twentyseven years. The first time any demand "for payment for hclidrys was made was on Anniversary Day last year. Some men had been paid for Christmas Day, but just as an act of grace. Payment fur hdidays had rot been made, so far as ho was aware, for twenty years. , T. E. Fraser, stated that he had been a printer in Christchurch for twentyfour years. The compositors had always demanded the holidays, but had never demanded payment. .Hp conducted the proceed ngs Wi.en the agreement was drawn up, and no such point was ever raised.' To Mr Wright: Apprentices were paid for holidays. Mr Russell said that if the application was upheld a, charge of £ISOO a year would be-made upon the three firms concerned, and if back pay was awarded, they would have to pay between £7OOO and £BOOO. The issue was one of great magnitude, for it would affect all award's which mentioned holidays as the typographers award did. A principle had been consistently followed, to the effect that in the case of a worker entitled to overtime commencing from a definite hour, he should not receive holidays and payment too, but where the exigencies of business necessitated his working after that hour, then as compensation lie was given holidays and paid for them. Whenever an award intended that holidays should be paid for. that Was stated in so many words. It was not sufficient to prove in the case before the Court a weekly hiring. The hiring was defined in the award, and it was unnecessary, to seek other conditions. Mr Wright had laid before the

Court certain awards which clearly provided that the men were entitled to bo paid by virtue of the award itself. By a process of reasoning that ho himself could not follow, Mr Wright argued that the local award must be taken to have the same meaning as other awards containing other specific conditions. It was quite clear that workmen were never paid for Sundays, and, if they were asked to work on Sunday, they had to be paid double rates. Christmas Day and New Year’s Day were placed by the award on exactly the same footing. In regard to the other holidays, for which time and a half was to be paid, the provision proved that the days wore not to bo paid for unless worked. Otherwise, the men, on these holidays, would only get half a day’s wage more by working than by not working. It could not be contended that a “day off ” was no holiday if it was not paid for. Otherwise, long holidays without pay would not bo holidays. The weekly hiring was such that, although to preserve the men from dismissal for not going to work on holidays, they were given those holidays, the aivard did not contemplate paying the men for those holidays. He laid stress on the fact that when the agreement forming the basis of the award was made, no demand for payment was brought forward. It would bo unfair to construe the award beyond its specific terms, for the masters would bo saddled with a term to which they were not party, and to which the men as well were not party. It would bo equivalent to unearthing a condition of whose existence the masters knew nothing. The Canterbury award was more liberal than these or other parte of the colony. The Court should pot infer from the fact that the mring was weekly the incident that holidays should be paid for; because in all oss.es where that incident arose it was definitely stated. Sir Wright said that Mr Russell's argument concerning payment of holidays as compensation for not receiving overtime was incorrect, as was proved by the awards that ho had quoted, specifying payment for holidays. He held that those more specific .awards were merely interpretative or expanded forms of tire award in question. The groundwork of that award was the basis of all the others. The details were generally identical, but wtiero there was a point of doubt the more recent awards became _ explicit. There would bo something in Mr Russell s contention if the Canterbury award had been made later than the others. He contended that the trend of awards, of the Shops Act and of the Factories Act, was to provide for payment _ for all holidays; and the trend of judicial utterances in the Court was in the same direction. Mr Russell said that he desired to add that under the Wellington award, time lost through the intervention of a public holiday was deducted from the forty-eight hours. He submitted that the hours must be made up before the full week’s pay could bo claimed. The Court reserved its decision.