PAYMENT FOR HOLIDAYS

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 7029, 18 January 1910, Page 7

PAYMENT FOR HOLIDAYS

AN IMPORTANT CASE! GIRLS IN THE BOOTMAKING TRADE. PEEB3 ASSOCIATION. CHRISTCHURCH, January 17. A case that will probably affect the whole of tho bootmaking industry throughout New Zealand occupied tho attention of Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M., at tho. Magistrate's Court to-day. The Inspector of Awards (Mr AA r . H. Haggar) claimed £2O from Skelton, Frostick and Co. for breaches of tho bootmakers' award in failing to pay wages to certain female employees for Show Day and tho following Saturday. Mr Hagger said- there were cases iu respect to twenty-four- girls, but only two had been taken for tho purposes of this case, viz., Elizabeth Kilday, who was in her fourth year, and .Beatrice Smith, in her fifth year. The formeirecoived 20s per week, though she was only entitled to 19s, and the latter received 23s per week, the award wage. The factory had been closed on Show) Day and the following Saturday, and a deduction had been made from the gilds’ wages. Kilday had received only 15s for her week’s work, and the otbpr 17s 2d. Ho submitted that under tho award, though ’ they were not apprentices, their wages had to be computed weekly, and not by the hour, and they should have received tire full wage for the week. Ho referred to various clauses in the Act in detail to showthat they were entitled to receive the full amount. Mr Frostick said the case’was a. very important one, and would no doubt eventually reach the Arbitration Court. It was not an ordinary case of breach pf award, as it would affect the whole of the bootmaking trade in New Zealand. . This case was brought about, no doubt, because of tho position he occupied as president of the Boot Manufacturers’ Federation of New Zealand. and it was mot only on behalf of his firm, but on behalf of the federation, that ho' would endeavour to show that they were acting strictly according to their rights under the award now before the Court. It was quite true that clause Q (referring to the operation of certain sections) had been brought before the Arbitration Court and the Court had said it could not alter an, award. There was : no evidence that it was contrary to the agreement’of the parties. Air Justice Sim had said that this clause was nowin the award, and there it had got to stay. Every section was entitled to equal consideration. Clause 0 stated that nothing in this award shall be deemed to release an employer from payment of wages for holidays under the Factories Act. That clearly showed there were two classes of persons under the award, apprentices and others; If they had failed to pay apprentices they would have committed a breach of tho award. Apprentices had certain obligations to them, and they had certain obligations to apprentices; They had tho right to, dismiss an employee at twenty-four hours’ notice, for girls had. recognised their right to leave an employer .at twentyfour hours’ notice. They had established that right to lenv© under clause Q,, and therefore an employer had the right to dismiss. Regarding the employers’ liability to pay, the inspector had said that wages should be paid weekly and not ho computed by tho hour. They must be paid full wages weekly, and every week, but he failed to tell the Court the- whole of tho section. In tho event of machinery breaking down deduction from wages could he made for time not worked. He contended that if they had to pay for the holidays mentioned under the Factories Act they did not have to pay for those not mentioned. There Was no slackness of work at the time the alleged breach was committed; in fact, as everybody knew, there was plenty of work; The days mentioned wore holidays pure and simple. Show Day had always been observed as a customary holiday.< It was on account of the employees that the firm dosed, and the firm had no desire to deprive the girls of their wages. Air Frostick then produced a statement to show that the employees bad had to ’work overtime for two weeks prior to the holidays. Tho firm liad paid tbeir employees overtime. and it cost them about £l2 more than if the holidays were not given. Overtime was worked in order to allow tbo employees to get off.

Mr Haggar said twenty-four hours’ notice was only when an employee was dismissed for misbehaviour or slackness of work.

The Magistrate reserved his decision