NOT IN AWARD

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23817, 19 November 1940, Page 8

NOT IN AWARD

WOOLLEN MILL CASE POSITION OF EXPERTS JUDGMENT OF THE COURT Judgment has been delivered by the Arbitration Court on claims for penalties brought against the Onehunga Woollen Mills, Limited (Mr. H. P. Richmond), by the inspector of awards (Mr. C. P. Smith), for alleged breaches of the woollen mills employees' award. It. was alleged that the defendant company had employed a foreman in the dyehouse, a forewoman in the weaving room and a foreman carder, while none of them was a member of the Woollen Mills Employees' Union. Penalties of £lO were claimed in each case. In delivering a majority judgment, Mr. Justice Tyndall reviewed the evidence suhmitted at the two days' hearing of the case. The foreman dyer, Mr. W. E. Capstick, was originally engaged in his present capacity in October, 1936, said His Honor. He was in complete charge of the technical work of preparing dyes and blending to obtain upwards of 800 shades of colour. Ho had stated in evidence that normally he did no manual labour, and his salary was paid irrespective of whether the mill was working. He. had.never been a member of any workers' union, and had stated that as a matter of principle he would resign his position rather than join a union. ' Replacement Question Mr. H. Blacker had' been engaged as foreman carder in November, 1937. He did not do any work similar to that undertaken by the men under him, and bis salary was paid 'irrespective of whether the mill was working. Although he had worked beyond his -normal hours, he had never claimed or been paid overtime. He had never been a member of a union, and considered he could not serve his employer loyally if lie were a member. The forewoman of the weaving department, Miss E. McDermott, was engaged in October, 1938. She had charge of 34 girls, and only operated a machine when a girl was absent. She had estimated that about 10 per cent of her working time was taken up in this way. The manager of the mill, Mr. William Miller, had given evidence that he know of no unionist who could take the places of the employees in question. He had also stated that the company employed working foremen in the mill. Conclusions of Court For the inspector of awards, it had been submitted that, as definite provision was made in the award for the wages of foremen and forewomen, and the employees were not members of the union, their employment was illegal. For the defendant company, Mr. Richmond had submitted that the employees mentioned Mere not occupying positions subject to the award, and that only working foremen came within tho context of the award, which was not applicable to salaried officials. Referring to the clause dealing with foremen, the judgment said the Court was driven to the conclusion that tl«> foremen and forewomen mentioned in the award were hourly workers. "There have been many occasions in the past when foremen have been specifically excluded by the Court from awards," continued the judgment. "In view of this general policy, it is considered that, before managerial foremen or forewomen are regarded as being under an award, the reference bringing them under it should be much moretlear and specific than that contained in the clause of the award. Meaning of Foremen "The majority of the Court is of opinion that the words 'foremen and forewomen' must in this case be read in the narrow sense as meaning 'working foremen and forewomen engaged at an hourly rate,' and judgment is given for the defendant company," concluded tho finding. A note appended by Mr. W. C. Prime, employers' representative on the Court, stated that in the proceedings prior to making the award he was left with the impression that it was working foremen or forewomen that were referred to. Ho had had .no idea that it might be contended that employees such as those mentioned in this case were to be regarded as foremen. Had that been so. he would have entered a strong dissent against their inclusion in the award. Jn a, dissenting opinion, Mr. A. L. Monteith, the employees' representative on the Conrt, said the award clearly included foremen and forewomen. "The members of the Court surely know the difference between 'foremen and forewomen' and 'working foremen and forewomen' and 'leading hands,' " lie said. "If it was the intention that only working foremen and forewomen were to lie covered, this Court with its industrial knowledge would surely have said so."