THE 40-HOUR WEEK

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 22948, 28 January 1938, Page 12

THE 40-HOUR WEEK

WORKING ON SIX DAYS TRAMWAY COMPANY'S ACTION CLAIM MADE FOR OVERTIME [BY TELtfGBAPH —PRKSS ASSOCIATION] DUNEDIX, Thursday The action of the Dunedin Kaikorai Tramway Company, Limited, in "spreading" the prescribed 40-hour week over six days without payment of overtime was the subject of a case in the Magistrate's Court to-day, when the Department of Labour proceeded against the company on behalf of one of its own employees, claiming the sum of £37 10s 4d for overtime pay covering a period of 39 weeks. Mr. G. F. Grieve represented the department and Mr. A. C. Stephens appeared for the defendant company. Prior to the introduction of the 40hour week, Mr. Grieve said, men employed by the defendant company were working 18 hours a week, comprised of six (lays of eight hours each. When the Arbitration Court reduced the working hours to -10 it gave the right to employer to work their men on Saturdays without payment of overtime. The defendant company took the view that it was entitled to spread the 40 hours over six days and consequently reduced the working time from Saturday to Monday inclusive to (3 2-8 hours daily.

The company's right to do this was challenged by the union and the matter wus referred to the Arbitration Court, which, in its judgment, drew attention to the peculiar wording of the industrial agreement and stated that 40 hours must be worked in days of eight hours each and that the Court had no power to alter the daily maximum of hours to spread the 10 hours over six days ih this particular case. Between the time of the introduction of the 40-hour week and the? issue t>f the Court's ruling in the matter ill question, .'it) weeks had elapsed. The department claimed on behalf of the worker that a week's pay should bo given for the first five days worked and that a further day's pay should be made to him for tin; sixth day.

Mr, Stephens mentioned that Mr. Justice Page had heard the* case, hut that it was Mr. .Justice O'Kegan who had given the judgment, as he had been appointed to the vacancy after Mr. Justice Page'* death. He submitted lengthy legal argument in defence of tile company's action. The magistrate reserved liis decision.