SLACK PERIODS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22822, 1 September 1937, Page 16

SLACK PERIODS

LOSS 0E DAY'S WORK A DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE JUDGMENT OF CHIEF JUSTICE [by telegraph—OWN correspondent] PALMERSTOX NORTH, Tuesday An important reserved judgment of the. Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, concerning the right of factory owners to make deductions front tho wages of employees when short time is worked, was delivered in the Supreme Court at PaliihTston North. Tho Chief Justice upheld the decision of Mr. J. L. Stout, S.M., against which an appeal was made. The magistrate had dismissed an inforniation brought by Gordon Brown, inspector of factories at Palmerston North, .against the Manawatu Knitting Mills, Limited. It was alleged that during-the week ended January 15 the defendants employed Violet King, a person with over thrco years' factory experience, and failed to pay her not less than £2. It was admitted that the company employed tho woman, whose wage was £2 os, but who lost one day's work on account of temporary slackness and as a result had lost 9s as a deduction, making her remuneration for that week £1 16s. Provisions ol the Act "The information was laid under section 32 of the Factories Apt, 1921-22, as amended by section 12 (2) of tho Factories Act, 1936," said tho Chief Justice. "The section as amended reads as follows:—'Every person who is employed in any capacity in a factory shall be entitled to receive from the occupier such payment for his work as is agreed on, being not less than 15s in any one week during tho first six months of employment, with halfyearly increments on an agreed rate of not less than 4s a week until tho end of the third year of employment, and thereafter not less than £2 a week. No deductions shall bo made from the wages of any boy or any woman under 18 years of age except fop time los't through a worker's illness or default or on account of tho temporary closing of the factory for cleaning or repairing machinery.' Magistrate's Construction "I agree with the magistrate's decision," His Honor continued. "I think that his view was right on the construction of the statute. It is merely a minimum rate of wage, in my opinion, as in the learned magistrate's, that the section fixes. That is shown by other provisions of the statute, such as paragraph (b) of section 32, which says: 'Such rate shall in every case be irrespective of overtime.' Sub-section (2) f, section 12, of tho Amendment Act also refers to the rate of payment. "Paragraph (c) f, section 32, of the principal Act, it is true, savs that such payment shall be made in full at not more than fortnightly intervals. That, however, does not refer to the amount of payment, but only to the times or periods that wages, whatever tho amount may be, are to be paid. Apart from that, section 33 (a) itself expressly prohibits any deduction being made from the wages of any boy or woman under 18 except for time lost through a worker's illness or default or on account of the temporary closing of a factory for cleaning the machinery.

Possible Deductions "The necessary implication is, 1 think, that possible deductions are contemplated. In all cases such deductions are necessarily made from the wages payable. The appellant's suggested construction would apparently involve the strange result that during the closing of a factory for cleaning a deduction might be made from the wages of a boy or girl, but not from those of an adult worker. "What the section does, I think," proceeded His Honor, "is to fix the minimum rate of payment, such rate of payment being subject, however, to proper deductions except so far as arc prohibited in the case of boys and women under 18 years of ago or generally under tho provisions of the Act —for example, section 3o of the principal Act, as amended by section 13 of the 1936 Amendment Act, dealing*" with holidays. The Section's Intention "Mr. Cooper sought to place some reliance on section 19 of tho 193G Act. which says: 'All awards and industrial agreements under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1925 (whether made before or after the commencement of this Act), shall be read subject to the provisions of this Act, provided that nothing therein shall be construed to reduce the rate of wages pa\'ablc to any worker pursuant to any award or industrial agreement or to increase his working hours as fixed by any - such award or agreement.' I do not think, however, that this section affects the matter. "The , appellant's contention, in effect."' said His Honor, "is that section 32 (a) is to bo read ns if there was a proviso, in it that in no case shall the wages actually paid be less than the minimum mentioned. Whether or not. that-was intended, 1 cannot say. All I can say is: If it were intended, the language of the section does not, in. my opinion, on its true construction, carry out the intention. The appeal is dismissed, with £7 7s costs."