FOOTWEAR TRADE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23208, 30 November 1938, Page 16

FOOTWEAR TRADE

CLAIMS BY EMPLOYEES award breaches alleged DEFENDANT COMPANY UPHELD [BY TELEGRAPH —MtESS ASSOCIATION'] CHRISTCHURCH, Tuesday Reserved judgments in cases of interest to the footwear industry were delivered by Mr. G. G. Chisholm, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court to-day. Judgment for defendant was given in each caso where claims were made against Suckling Brothers, Limited, by the Now Zealand Federated Footwear Trade Industrial Association, of Workers and Alfred James Cumniings.

The union alleged a breach of the award and plaintiff Cumniings alleged a breach of an apprenticeship contract. In the lirst caso it was alleged that the defendant company failed to pay wages to Vera Thompson, who was employed as an assistant, when the tactory was closed for the Christmas holidays. Tho judgment stated that-evi-dence had bccu given that 46 assistants had bccu dismissed for the holidays after notice bad been duly given. "Tho question to be decided," said the magistrate, "is whether there was a genuine dismissal or whether it was a subterfuge to avoid payment for the holidays. The company appears to have made the dismissal effective., and I think it must stand, except that it may be invalidated by the motive. "Defendant led conclusive evidence of the collapse of the industry between July and v Christmas of last year," continued the magistrate. "This showed that the closing of the factory had been considered much earlier, but whatever weight may be attached to motives I think that 110 breach of the award has been proved." Judgment was given with costs to defendant. The other claim was based on allegations by Cumniings, one of several apprentices employed by the factory, He claimed that a deduction had been mado from his wages during the holidays because the reason given for closing was not bona fide, and fore tho deduction was not legal. Plaintiff contended that the nature of tho plant did not justify closing for cleaning and repairs, and that the work done was negligible and did not warrant closing. "I am satisfied from the evidence that an annual overhaul is a desirable practice," isaid the magistrate in his decision, "and that it is best done when the factory is closed. That employers purport to dismiss assistants at |he same time does, not seem to me to affect the position." Judgment was given with costs to defendant.