WAGES ON HOLIDAYS

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 156, 3 June 1937, Page 7

WAGES ON HOLIDAYS

IM!A Gy STYMIE'S DECISION. AN APPEAL PROBABLE. WELLINGTON June 2. The judgment of Mr J. H. Luxford, S.M., ruling that clothing trade employees who had been paid their wages in full for a working week are entitled to an additional day’s pay in respect of an award holiday falling on a day when ordinarily the factory would be closed, is likely to be tested by appeal to the Supreme Court. In the case decided upon by Mr Luxford, Cathie and Sons, Ltd (who were named as nominal or representatives defendants) in their factory operated for 40 hours each week between Mondays and Fridays, both days inclusive. Work ceased in the factory on Thursday, December 24. and recommenced on the following Monday The company paid its employees for the full working week, including Chirstmas Day, but the inspector of awards contended that the employees should have received an additional day’s pay for Boxing Day. This contention was supported by the judgment. MANUFACTURERS’ BELIEF. NEW LEGISLATION NEEDED. Per Press Association.

CHRISTCHURCH, June 2. ltestrospective legislation is to be sought from the Government to rectify the position which is considered to have arisen from the reserved decision given by Mr J. H. Luxford, S.M., in Wellington in the test case to decide whether employees were entitled to an additional day’s pay for' an award holiday that fell on a day on which the factory would ordinarily bo closed. The Magistrate decided that employees were so entitled and members of the council of the Canterbury Manufacturers’ Association at a meeting this evening claimed that this was a reversal of the position as stated by the Labour Department and that legislation was required to rectify it. A resolution to that effect was carried. “The decision means that Boxing Day, a Saturday, and Anzac Day, a Sunday, have to be paid for under the Act,’’ said the president, Mr H. B. Duckworth, after quoting from the Act

Mr. Duckworth continued: “The Act does not say, as Mr Luxford mentions, that last year’s amendment confers on the employees a holiday bonus irrespective of the hours worked in any week previous to the holiday. While I am not prepared to say whether the Magistrate is right or wrong in his decision, I am quite definite that it affects every manufacturer in the country It is really a new interpretation of a clause in the Act and we cannot allow the position to go on as it is. I have brought the matter forward for members to decide whether we will take it sitting down or whether we will ask the federation to appeal against it.” Mr S. L. Wright said that before Boxing Day the Labour Department gave a ruling clearly stating that it was the intention of the amended Act that no employee should suffer a reduction of wages because o( a holiday. “This decision is a complete reversal of that statement, and if it is upheld it means that employees are entitled to a full day’s pay for Boxing Day and Anzac Day in addition to a week’s wages, something clearly not intended at the passing of amendments to the Act. As this affects manufacturers in all trades, I move that the Government be approached asking for legislation rectifying the position. I do not believe that the Government had any intention of creating a bonus over and above the week’s wages, and I think the proper course is to ask the federation to approach the Government immediately to take steps for retrospective legislation. If not, every manufacturer will be called on in the courts to pay for those holidays.” The motion was seconded by Mr F. W. J. Belton, "who said that it was plainly the intention of the Government to ensure that employees did not lose by an enforced holiday and not that they should receive a bonus for such a holiday. , Mr A. M. Hollander said he thought they should approach the matter rather as an increased burden on New Zealand industry. They knew no more of the interpretation of the law than the magistrate did of manufacturing, ] and so they should not he too drastic in their critifcism of the legal aspects. , , . Mr H. C. Urlwin suggested that in asking for . retrospective legislation they were agfeeing that the magistrate's decision was right. They should seek an appeal and await its result and then take action if necessary. Mr Wright said that the Government had at its disposal legal authorities as capable of giving a decision as the Supreme Court. To delay ■would he dangerous, as the employees could claim for retrospective wages only oyer a six-months’ period, which for Boxing Day would be complete this month. If the Government intended that, the bonus should be paid or if it intended the interpretation to he that given by the Labour Department, there should he no reason why its intention should not be made known as once. ' The motion was carried unanimously', and the secretary' was instructed to communicate the text of it to the other three associations and the president' of the Manufacturers’ Federation, asking them to take similar action immediately. ' .