Loading Ship During Meal Hour

Manawatu Times, Volume 63, Issue 45, 23 February 1938, Page 5

Loading Ship During Meal Hour

Penalties Claimed From Watersiders PORT GISBORNE CASE Per Pres* Association. WELLINGTON, Last Night. A penalty of £5 from each of twelve men alleged to have refused to work during their 5 o ’clock to 6 o ’clock meal hour in loading the Port Gisborne on January 13 was claimed in the Magistrate’s Court this afternoon by Gannaway and Co., Ltd., stevedores, under authority contained in section 129 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. It was tne first case of its kind to be brought in New Zealand, and, although any party to an award may claim a penalty for a breach of au award, the penalties recovered are for the use of the Crown. The defendants in the case were W. Anderson, D. Bramwell, A. Davie, J. A. Dooley, D. Duffy, T. Hassett, J. O. Mclntyre, N. Pulsfopd, A. C. Piper, H. T. Riley, W. Reid and J. A. Young. Mr. J. H. Luxford, S.M., presided. Mr. W. P. Bhorland appeared for Gannaway and Co., Ltd., and Mr. R. Hardio Boys for the defendants. Bection. 129 of the I.C. and A. Act provides for a penalty of £5. The plaintiff alleged that the workers had committed a breach of clause 19 (b) of the New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Award, which provides:— “Men shall work during meal hours if required to do so, and, except as herein otherwise provided, shall be paid at the rate of double ordinary time for the full hour (breakfast, dinner, tea, or supper) if the ship or job is not finishing during the meal hour. If the ship or jcb is finishing during the meal hour, and the men work half an hour or less of such meal hour, the full half-hour shall be paid for. If more than half an hour of the meal hour is worked and the ship or job is finishing during the meal hour, the full meal hour shall be paid for. “Notiee to work a meal hour shall be given a quarter of au hour before the time fixed for the commencement of the meal.”

Mr. Bhorland, 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 apportion more equally than in the past. The defendants 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, aB the cargo could not be left on the wharf overnight like other goods. Later in the afternoon it became apparent 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 work. Next morning the gang claimed they should be paid for the time the crew had put in and there w r as some dispute over that.

Mr. llardic Boys made four legal submissions. The 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 thau 4 p.m. If they were ordered back for the tea hour the order must bo given not later than 4.45 p.m. but the only provision in the whole award under which the men could be 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 alter 6 p.m. and again next morning. The Magistrate: “I am not at all impressed with that line of argument. It was still 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. Hardie Boys. Mr. Bhorland submitted that an award affected the ordinary legal rela tionship between master and servant only in respect of matters it provided for. There was a clear necessity for the employer to provide for emergencies as they arose. The purpose of Clause 15 to which Mr. Hardie Boys had referred, was to provide that work should be 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.