FREEZING WORKERS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20244, 2 May 1929, Page 17

FREEZING WORKERS.

AWARD INTERPRETATIONS.

WAITING TIME QUESTION.

ARBITRATION COURT JUDGMENT.

The judgment of the Arbitration Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Frazer yesterday on several freezing industry award interpretations which were sought last week.

At the instance of the inspector of awards, Mr. J. Hollows, tho Court had been asked for an interpretation of the award as it affected the waiting time of certain chamber hands in freezing works. The position was that some such employees of the Westfield Freezing Company wero called out to work at midnight. They continued until 5 a.m., when they were told to cease work and return at 8 a.m. The Court was asked whether the men were entitled to waiting lime from 5 a.m. to 8 a.m., under a clause which stated that " should it be necessary at any time to wait for work after the notified time of starting, waiting time should be paid until the actual time of starting." The reserved judgment of tho Court was that the clause in question provided for the payment of waiting time only between the notified time of starting and tho actual time of starting work. In the caso in question, waiting time would have been payable had the men been notified to start at midnight, but had been kept waiting until 1 a.m. to commence. When a definite break was made after the actual starting time, however waiting time was not payable, subject to provisions for minimum payments. The companies were, however, prepared to pay waiting time during any temporary hold-up of work, while the men were actually kept waiting for employment. A further interpretation of the freezing workers' award had been sought on the position of slaughterhouse assistants who were employed ordinarily by contractors who wero not parties to the award at the Westfield Freezing Works, but who were employed outside ordinary working hours by the Westfield company in railing out beef and mutton. The question asked was whether these men were entitled to receive from the company the average minimum wage of 8s a day while they were on the company's wages sheet, irrespective of wages earned from the contractors.

His Honor said the Court had certainly not contemplated such dual employment, but clearly the men were entitled to claim the minimum of 8s a day from the company, irrespective of any ■wages they might earn from the contractors. He regretted the departure from the old arrangement, whereby the contractors, as the principal employers, had made up the wages to aji average of 8s a day without counting the money earned by the men when railing out carcases.

The Court also granted an application by the union to have the slaughterhouse, offal floor and cooling room contractors made parties to the award.