DRIVERS' WAGES.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17311, 28 October 1916, Page 4

DRIVERS' WAGES.

DELIVERING GROCERIES. ALLEGED BREACH OP AWARD. CHARGE DISMISSED. The Now Zealand Farmers' Co-opera-tivo Association, Ltd. (Mr Heltnoicj was charged by the Inspector of Factories at the Magistrate'*,' Court yesterday, before Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M., with a broach of the grocers' assistants' award, in that it had employed F. M'Fall, a driver, during August and September, paying him £2 12s, instead of £2 17s 6d. Thero was a similar ciiarge in respect to 0. Everett. There were fivo other cases, and it was agreed to go on with the cases of C. Everest, W. H. Tully, T. O'Ronrke and Ralph Reese. Mr J. Jackson, who appeared for tho Department of Labour, said that the association was a party to tho award, which came into force on June 1. ' The defendants were grocers, but had failed to pay drivers who were delivering groceries at tho award rate. They must bo classified as drivers and assistants while delivering grocories, for in the alternative they could only bo classified as shop assistants. The Court had laid it down that where a man worked a quarter of his time as a. coachsmith and the rest of his time as a farrier or general blacksmith he must be paid as a farrier or general' smith. If tho defendant's carriers spent most of their time delivering groceries they must be so paid. An interpretation had also been given in tho Wellington groceries award that where a man spent only two days delivering groceries he must be paid under tho grocers' award. Mr Helmore said that the defendants for many years had worked under the drivers' award, and had paid wages accordingly. Tho Magistrate said that if the facts were admitted it was a matter of interpretation, which should bo settled by tho Arbitration Court, and he could insist on that course. An appeal seemed probable in any caso. Ho would certainly state a case for interpretation. Mr Helmore said that the facts regarding the men's work were not agreed on. * Ralph Reese, driver to the Farmers' Co-operative for a year and eight months, said that' he was a member of the Drivers' Union arid Grocers' Drivers' Union. He drove one horse, and received £2 12s". He gave five or six hours of every day.to delivering groceries. To Mr Helmore: He had been a member of the Grocers' Union four years, and of the Drivers' Union eighteen months. He took out whatever was given to him, including seeds, ironmongery, drapery and groceries, but never groceries alone. " How can you fix the five or six hours delivering groceries?" asked Mr Helmore. " Manifestly he cannot do it," said the Magistrate. "It is utterly impossible to separate the number of hours." T. P. O'Rourke, motor driver for the defendants, receiving £2 12s, said that he delivered more groceries than anything'else, but did not reckon more than four Hours a day. Sometimes he took groceries alone. To Mr Helmore: He had never complained that ho was not receiving full wages. He was in tho association's provident fund. "■ W. H. Tully, (driver to the Farmers' Co-operative Association, receiving £2 12s. &aid that he delivered whatever was given him, but most of tho time was taken up in delivering groceries'. J. C Everett, motor driver, gave similar evidence. For the defence fE. W. Relph, manager of the association, gave evidence' that the delivery was a system separate from all other departments, but performing a service for them all. No claim had been made by the men that they were not working under the right way. Deliveries for each department would entail enormous overlapping, with three or four carts going/to one house. To Mr Jackson: He could give no reason why lie did not claim exemption when the grocers' award was made. Some time ago it,had been agreed by Mr W. H. Hagger that it would bo difficult to work other than under the general award: He realised that he was paying £2 12s a week for work that cost other firms' £2 17s 6d, but he did not' cohceclo that the men's time was mostly taken up with grocery deliveries. T. Hilson, in charge of deliveries, said that parcels came from all departments, and were sent out mixed to the various addresses. It would be hard to npportion the time occupied on each class of goods, but groceries were only 24 per cent of tho association's retail sales. In 1913 'all the association's drivers were called out by the DrivOrs' Union, although grocers' drivers were not out. To Mr Jackson: The 24 per cent was based on values. The > association had a big grocery business. To Mr Helmore: Tho grocers' rate was higher because the employer could keep the driver at work inside the shop while he was not delivering. John Clark, merchant,, of Christchurch, said that he had taken a three days' tally of the association's deliveries, and" there were 1271 grocery deliveries as against 1398 other deliveries, the value being £949 as against £3237. These were irrespective of ten two•horse lorry loads to the associations branches. To Mr. Jackson : Ho had taken figures for Tuesday. Wednesday and Thursday, aud not for Friday and Saturday. ! The .Magistrate said that he would not disturb the existing order of things, although his mind was not free from doubt on the subject, and the Arbitration Court might differ from him on the gromd that in paying lower wages for the same work the association was getting an undue advantage over firms that \vere bound under the grocers' award. He could not set a question for interpretation, but thought that tho parties should agree on one ease for appeal. . Mr' Jackson selected the case R. Reese, and tho Magistrate thereupon dismissed the case and adjourned the others ponding notice of appeal.