AWARD CLAUSES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22887, 16 November 1937, Page 15

AWARD CLAUSES

INTERPRETATION CASES

APPLICATIONS TO COURT THREE UNIONS CONCERNED I hree applications for an interpretation of clauses in awards were dealt with by the Arbitration Court yesterday. One of them was caused "by the employment of electrical workers on a Saturday during the celebrations, another concerned stonemasons work at cemeteries, and the third was about overtime for apprentices employed by master bakers. Mr. •lust ice O' Regan presided, with him being Mr. \\. Cecil Prime and Mi-. A. L Monteith, lay members.

I lie Labour Department, represented by Mi-. C. P. Smith, brought an application foi an interpretation of a clause in the northern industrial district electrical workers' award governing the employment of workers on a Saturday morning. The clause allowed the employment of men 011 Saturday morning for work which was not concerned with new installations, and the C ourt was asked whether making and overhauling Coronation festoons on a Saturday morning was concerned with new installations. For the l'.lectrical Construction Company, Mr. •1. I*. Annitage argued that the work was ot a temporary nature and that by new installations the clause meant any fitting that was to be a permanent and integral part of the building. It was held by the Court that overtime in this instance was payable.

For the Stonemasons' Union, Mr. . \ ennall sought an interpretation of a clause in the Dominion award by which stonemasons we,re defined. The argument hinged on what was meant by building, fixing, plastering and finishing memorial stones, and Mr. H. Parkinson, an employer, who objected to the interpretation of the union and other employers, argued that a man employed by him was not a stonemason but a cemetery hand. The Court decided to take time to consider the question. Overtime payments for apprentices engaged by Auckland master bakers was the subject of the third application, the secretary of the Auckland Bakers' Employees' Union, .Mr. E. J. Watson, holding that apprentices were to be paid the same overtime rate, 2s an hour, as journeymen, whom he maintained were covered by • the classification of adult workers. Mr. Lisle Aldcrton, representing the Auckland Master Bakers'* Association, argued that overtime rates for "apprentices were governed by the apprentices' order and that lis an hour was an incorrect payment.

The Court reserved its interpretation. It stated that such interpretations were merely opinions of the Court and not necessarily in themselves binding upon the parties.