OVERTIME QUESTION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19762, 8 October 1927, Page 15

OVERTIME QUESTION.

COMPANY'S LEGAL RIGHTS. COURT REFUSES PENALTY.' "PAYING LIKE A GENTLEMAN." " J would repeat that the Court is of opinion the company should in justice pay this man overtime from February 10 to April 1, because it is a recognised custom that when an interpretation is given the party at default pays up like a gentleman," said Mr. Justice Frazer in the Arbitration Court yesterday at the conclusion of a claim by tho inspector of awards (Mr. G. F. Grieve) against the Northern Steamship Company,* Limited (Mr. It. McVeagh) for a penalty of £2O for a breach of the Cooks and Stewards Award. The Labour Department contended that a night-watchman employed by the company was entitled to payment of overtime covering a period prior to his discharge. Mr. Grieve said tho question to be decided by the Court was whether the company was justified in sheltering behind the provisions of the Shipping and Seamen ! Act to disclaim responsibility for payment of overtime prior to tho night-watch-I man's discharge. Tho dispute had been before the Court twice previously. Tho night-watchman was employed on the Matangi from November 30, 1926, to April 1, 1927, on which date he signed off. During the period no weekly time off in his home port, equivalent to four working hours for each week, had been allowed, nor had the company paid overtime in lieu of time off. It was contended by the company that as the old articles of employment expired on April 1, it was not liable, under the provisions of the Act, to meet a claim arising out of employment prior to that date. However, the department suggested the overtime should have been paid, in spite of the provisions of the Act. Effect of Paying Ofl. Mr. McVeagh said that prior to May 9 last the parties to the award had worked upon a mutual interpretation, which, however, both sides now admitted to have been wrong. The night-watchman had j been paid off on April 1 in accordance with the Act, which meant that he cleared the company from all claims and other liabilities. His Honor said that under the Court's interpretation given on May 9 the company had committed a breach of tho award. The man gave a clear discharge to the company of all claims when he signed off on April 1. The company was legally entitled to stand by that release, so that it was not bound to pay any additional money in respect of the period of service completed. However, the Court decided on May 9 that the man was entitled to certain overtime because both the company and the Labour Department had been under a misapprehension. A request was apparently made for payment of overtime arrears, but the company stood upon its legal rights. Court Not To Be Used as Lever. It appeared a penalty was sought by the department in order to force the company to do something which it was not legally bound to do. On the other hand, it was usual, when the Court gave an interpretation, for the defaulting party to meet demands made upon it. A breach had certainly been committed, but it was technical, and it was clear that neither party realised the night-watchman was being underpaid. That being so, the Court could not possibly allow itself to be used as a lever to extract a civil debt which was debarred by statute. The members of the Court were agreed that the company must have known when the matter was placed before't, that there was a genuine claim by the union for a revision of the night-watchman's hours. It was suggested, therefore, that additional overtime should be paid from February 10, on which date the company was acquainted with the circumstances, to April 1. No penalty would be imposed, as at the time the breach was excusable and trivial.