FLAXWORKERS' AWARD

Manawatu Standard, Volume L, Issue 114, 10 April 1930, Page 4

FLAXWORKERS' AWARD

CLAIMS FOR PENALTY. TWO BREACHES ALLEGED. CUTTING OF BLACKBERRY. Seeking a penalty of £lO for an alleged breach of the Wellington industrial district flaxmill employees award, Joseph Lowden (Inspector of Awards at Palmerston North) took proceedings in the Arbitration Court, yesterday, before Mr Justice Frazer, against Whitanui, Ltd., flaxmillers, of Moutoa. Complaint was made that defendants, being a party to the award, had between January 1 'and March 20, 1930, employed W. Watson, M. Cassidy, W. Londrigan, J. Mac Kay, and N. Richards as workers under the award to cut and clean blackberry growing in their flax swamp at Moutoa. It was alleged that they had been paid only Is 9d per hour instead of Is 10Jd per hour, the .minimum award rate proscribed by clause 4 fc) for “workers not otherwise specified.’’ The New Zealand Flaxmillers’ Association sought to be joined as a Jerendant to the action on the grounds of identity of interest, and on account of its written request and resolution to be regarded as such a party. The application, however, was dismissed by His Honour. ' William Wood and Co. Mukupai Flaxmilling Co., Makerua) were the defendants in another claim by the inspector for a penalty of £lO in respect of an alleged breach of the Wellington industrial district ‘ flaxmill employees’ award. It was alleged that defendants had employed J. Gilmor at lending a plough horse, planting flax and digging out weeds where flax was grown for milling purposes, paying him only Is 9d per hour instead of Is 10id per hour, the minimum award rate prescribed. Both actions were taken together, Mr Grant appearing for the defence in each case.

Mr Lowden stated that it would ho submitted that the work of cutting and clearing the blackberry was not only connected with the flax industry, but was inseparable from it. The neglect' of an employer to keep his swamp clear of blackberry did not permit him to place workers outside the scope (f the award. Percy Taylor Robinson, secretary of the Flaxmill Workers’ Union, stated that the majority of the flax swamps were inspected with blackberry, and it was customary to pay cutters more per ton for flax obtained from'such areas. The quantity of blackberry was a factor in fixing the rate of payment in every block. He considered that the award conditions should apply to cutting where blackberry was in the contract. The practice was to make up a contract to the minimum wage where blackberry was encountered. Replying to Mr Grant, witness stated that blackberry cutting had been going on for four years, and before the present contract came into force, The first complaint made regarding alleged failure to pay minimum rates was about four months ago. Examined by Mr Grant in respect i of the second case, witness stated that the employee concerned was weeding I the flax plants in the nursery. He knew that some of the plants had been put in the swamps, although he had not seen it done. Quite a lot of blackberry cutting had been done by casual ; labour, mostly flax-workers, although ' some had been done by contract. | Blackberry cutting did not require a knowledge of flax-cutting. Blackberry .work could be. done either separately | from or together with flax-cutting. | Francis Joseph Lucinsky, flaxcutter, stated that in 1928 he was cutting | blackberry and planting flax for Wliita--1 nui, Ltd. He was paid Is lOid pel hour for each operation without am; request on his part. He received 15s : a day for several months. Examined by Mr Grant, he denied that practically all the men cutting blackberry on Whitanui received Is 9d an hour. Samuel Anderson, president of the Flaxcutters’ Union, stated that the cutting of blackberry made the flax-, cutter’s work easier, and the latter

did not have to be paid such high rates in that case. CASE FOR DEFENCE. Mr Grant submitted that, so far as the second information against Woo and Co. was concerned, there »<« nothing to justify the aflegation of a breach of the award, It was contended that all the operations refexred to in the cases were not necessarily wo oovered by the award. T which had been mentioned was an experimental plot. The planting been undertaken with the object improving the flax industry, and was performed by unskilled labour Blackberry cutting was work which came ’under the ordinary landowne rs obliga tion. It simply meant it the allega tion was upheld that every man with a flax area on his property, and who employed labour to eliminate blackbeiy, would place himself within reach of the provisions of the award. He suggested that it was an extravagant claim to maintain that the workers concerned came within the scope of the award. Frederick William Wilson, . supervising director of Whitanui, Ltd., stated that it was considered blackberry cutting did not come into the flax industry in the sense of the award.. No one engaged in such work haci been paid over Is 9d a day for three years, with the exception of Is per daj extra to the timekeeper. The men had always accepted the payment without demur, except for one instance in the last week. Casual labour was engaged from any source available for blackberry cutting. ~, . Alfred Seifert, a director of the A. and L. Seifert’s Flaxdressing Coy-, stated that ho did not regard blackberry cutters as being engaged m the flax industry. Workers in experimental seedling plots were considered to be farm labourers. Replying to Mr Lowden, witness stated . that on occasions additional rates had been paid to flaxcutters where blackberry was troublesome. Albert Bregnan, swamp manager for the Mukapai Coy., stated that an experimental flax plot was conducted at Makerua, and the employee concerned was engaged in the nursery at Is 9d an hour. Witness did not regard it as work being within the scope of the award. The worker concerned was under the supervision of the farm manager. Ho regarded blackberry cutters as farm workers and when 15s a day was paid, it was to secure the servico of responsible employees. Mr Lowden claimed that the clause under which the complaints had been brought was specially designed to cover such matters as those with which the court was concerned. Looking through the whole of the award, stated Mr Justice Frazer, its primary functions were to deal with the cutting and milling of flax. The running of experimental plots seemed to have no more relation to the industry than the ploughing and sowing of land to the threshing and harvesting awards. Blackberry cutters were not specifically mentioned and an award must always be read according to its apparent object—in this case relating to flax" cutters and millers. The court had come to the conclusion that,,the occupations which were the basis of the claims made did not come under the application of those “not otherwise specified.” Both claims were accordingly dismissed, with judgment against the Inspector of t Awards.