DRIVERS’ AWARD

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12395, 15 March 1926, Page 6

DRIVERS’ AWARD

A QUESTION OF HOLIDAYS COURT'S INTERPRETATION. The interpretation of the court as to whether drivers employed by bakers whose principal business is governed by the bakers’ award, are entitled to the week’s holiday provided in the' bakers’ award, was recently placed before the Arbitration Court for de-, cision. The point for interpretation was in respect tp the holiday clause of the drivers’ award, which directs that the holidays for drivers working for employers whose principal business is governed by another award shall be the holidays provided in such other award. The drivers’ award provides for only nine holidays, whereas the bakers’ award provides for ten, and in addition a week’s holiday on completion of each year of service.. The Arbitration Court, in its interpretation, points out that all the- holidays referred to in the drivers’ award are public holidays. Obviously, it states, the clause referring to other awards related to holidays of the same description &b those specified in the earlier sub-clauses, that, is public holidays and other special days observed as holidays. A week’s holiday as provided for in the bakers’ and pastrycooks’ award was something of a different nature altogether. It was an annually recurring period of leave of absence on .pay. It had no relation to single day holidays and puiblio holidays, which were generally observed either by the public as a whole or by certain denned sections of the public; but it was a special period of leave, to be taken by each worker at a time not definitely fixed by the award, and, further, it was to be earned by the completion of a year’s service. The majority of the court expresses the opinion that the clause in the drivers’ award referring to another award had no relation to nolidays other than those of the description set out in the previous clauses, and accordingly it did not apply to the week’s holiday provided for by the bakers’ and pastrycooks’ award. The workers’ assessor on the court dissented from this view, holding that the sub-clause referring to other awards was of general application.