TEST CASE

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVIII, Issue 73, 23 February 1938, Page 10

TEST CASE

WATERSIDERS’ PAYMENT. LOADING OF MEAT. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Feb. 22. The first case of its kind in New Zealand commenced in Court this afternoon when Gannaway and Co., Ltd., claimed a penalty of £5 from eacli of twelve waterside workers who are alleged to have refused to work in the tea hour between 5 and 6 o’clock, loading on the Port Gisborne on January 13. The company alleges a breach of clause 19 B of the New Zealand Waterside Workers’ award, which provides that the men shall work during the meal hours if required to do so, and except as therein afterwards provided shall be paid at the rate of double the ordinary time for the full hour (breakfast, dinner, tea or supper) if a ship or a job is not finished during the meal hour. If ship or job is finishing during the meal hour and the men work for half an hour or less of such meal hour the full half hour shall lie paid for. If more than half an hour of a meal hour is worked, and the ship or job is finishing during the meal hour, the full meal hour shall be paid for. Notice to work during the meal hour shall be given a quarter of an hour before the time fixed for the commencement of tho meal. Penalties are claimed under Section 129 at the I.C. and A. Act. Any penalty recovered is for the use of the Crown.

Defendants in the case are W. Anderson, D. Bramwell, A. Davie J. A. Dooley, D. Duffy, T. Hassett, J. 0. Mclntyre, N. Pulsford, A. C. Piper, H. T. Riley, W. Reid and J. A. Young. Mr J. H. Luxford, S.M.. presided. Mr W. P. Shorland appeared for Ganaway and Co., Ltd., and Mr R. H. Boys for defendants..

Mr Shorland, opening his case, said the Port Gisborne was loading frozen meat. He described the bureau system at present in use in selecting of labour, saying that its object was to apSortion more equally than in the past. lefendanta and others joined the No. 1 gang engaged in loading No. 1 hatch of the vessel. A cargo of frozen meat, he said, caused difficulty to stevedores; it had to be taken from the particular refrigerating company to the waterfront and then loaded into the ship. Obviously the smallest amount of time must elapse after the meat had been taken from refrigeration, as the cargo could not be left on the wharf overnight like other goods. Later- in the afternoon it became apparent that it would not be possible to load all the meat by 10 p.m. and it became necessary to invoke Clause 19 of the award, section (B) of which provided that the men should work during meal hours if required to do so. At 6 p.m. the men would have been allowed an hour for a meal, and it was intended that they should go and be replaced by another gang. The result of their refusal to work was that at 10 p.m. there was still meat on the wharf and the crew had to be told off to do the work. Next morning the gang claimed that they should be paid for the time the crew had put in and there was some dispute over that. Mr Boys made four legal submissions. Tire first was that if the men were to be ordered back to work overtime from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m., the order must be given not later than 4 p.m. If they were ordered back for the tea hour the order must be given not later than 4.45 p.m., but the only provision in the whole award under which the men could he required to work both meal hour and overtime was contained in Clause 15, namely, that when it was expected to finish a ship or job at 6 p.m. or immediately after, the order to work to a finish must be given at 4 o’clock. The second submission was that an order given shortly before 4 o’clock constituted a bilateral contract to work from 6 to 10 p.m. That could not be affected by anything said at 4.45 p.m, ! Thirdly, the employer waived compliance with the order to work the meal hour. He acquiesced in the men s refusal to work by accepting their labour after 6 p.m. and again next morning. The Magistrate: I am not at all impressed with that line of argument. It was stilt valid to carry out a prior contract to work after 6 p.m. The fourth- submission that the breach was trivial would be made if it was desired to hear the evidence of the men, said Mr Boys. Mr Shorland submitted that an award affected the ordinary legal relationship between master and servant only, in respect of the matters it provided for. There was a clear necessity for the employer to provide for emercrencies as they arose. Tho purpose ot Clause 15, to ‘which Mr Boys had referred, was to provide that work should he carried on to a finish. As for Clause 19, if the submission of the defence were correct there would be no need for it in the award at all. The Magistrate said that at first glance it seemed that the defence raised was unanswerable. He would examine the legal question and decide whether it would be necessary to hear evidence for the defence.