RATIONED WORK

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23133, 3 September 1938, Page 16

RATIONED WORK

ACTION BY EMPLOYERS PAY FOR STAND-DOWN WEEKS JUDGE ALLOWS CLAIMS NO OBLOQUY ON COMPANY [bv telecuaph —rIIESS association] DUNE DIN, Friday Proceedings arising out of the rationing of work by a city firm during a slack period last year occupied the Supreme Court to-day. The case was one in which employees of Smith and Smith, Limited, claimed a total of £209 l'2s from the company, being the difference between the.award wages due to them for the period May 24 to September and the amount actually paid as a result of the rationing system. The Chief .Justice, Sir Michael Myers, presided. Mr. 1. B. Stevenson appeared lor plaintiffs and Mr. A. C. Stephens for the defendant company. Mr. Stevenson saiil there was a series of 15 claims by 15 employees of tho defendants. Under the rationing system the men worked two weeks and stood down for 0110 during the period in question. In the sum claimed allowance had been made for earnings derived from other forms of employment secured during the stand-down week. After hearing legal argument His Honor said that having come to a clear opinion on the matter there was no advantage to be gained by delaying delivery of his judgment. Continuous Employment Intended It was clear that what the awards under which the men were working intended was continuous employment. It was quite competent, however, for the company to terminate, by giving not fewer than seven days notice, the agreement of employment with as many of its men as it could not find work for by reason of altered trading conditions. The company nevertheless did not adopt that course.

Ho could quite understand why it hesitated to dispense altogether with the services of some of its employees, and in this connection 110 would like to emphasise that tho case involved no moral obloquy at all as far as the company was concerned, it had acted for the best for itself and its employees.

He was satisfied that there was no ground lor holding that there was between employer and employees any agreement for variation of the contract of employment for which the respective awards provided. Indeed, had the parties purported to vary the terms of employment, tho agreement would have had no validity, as it would have meant acceptance of less than the provisions of tho awards. It was also impossible to contend that the company had determined the employment of the plaintiffs in May. Implications of Awards

" The company acted in perfect good faith," said His Honor, "but in my opinion it also acted in contravention of the implications, although not the express provisions, of the awards. On the subject of fault of employers with respect to the discontinuance of employment, the provisions of awards must be interpreted in a non-technical sense. In a broad sense it was due to the fault of the employer that the men were not kept at work, inasmuch as the company altered its policy and said there was not sufficient work to keep all tho men engaged. " Each and every one of the plaintiffs, with the exception of one in respect of whom Mr. Stephens has agreed to accept an affidavit in lieu of his oral evidence, must receive judgment for the amount claimed."

. His Honor fixed costs to be paid by the defendant company as for one action, the amount to be based on the full sum recovered, with witnesses expenses and disbursements to be fixed by the registrar.