INTERPRETATION OF AWARDS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21022, 10 May 1930, Page 3

INTERPRETATION OF AWARDS.

STOREMEN AND PACKERS. la the afternoon the court heard an application by the Labour Department for interpretation of the following clause in the storemen and packers’ award:— “Storemen and packers over the age of 21 years employed at work usually performed by storemen and packers, such as receiving delivery of, collecting, stowing, handling, packing, and unpacking and despatching goods shall be paid not less than the following wages: Storemen and packers in charge of two or more men other than casuals, £4 15s per week; other storemen and packers, £4 5s per week.” The court was also asked to give an interpretation of tha clause: “The following shall be the minimum rate of wages payable to the following classes of workers, permanent cement loaders-out. Is lljd per hour, which is included in the cement workers’ industrial agreement. Mr A. T. Granjison represented the department, Mr W. Herbert the Storemen and Packers’ Union, and Mr Cookson the employers.

Mr Herbert said that at its works at Burnside the Milburn Lime and Cement Company, Ltd., employed three men whose principal duties consisted of loading bags on to railway and motor trucks, and drays They took their orders from a storeman who instructed them to load a stated number of bags to each vehicle. During such time as there was no vehicle to be loaded these men devoted their time to carrying bags of cement from the conveyor to stacks in the store. His union contended that these men were storemen, ' Mr Cookson maintained that the men did not come under the storemens and packers’ award, but were designated ns permanent orment loaders-out under the lime and cement workers’ industrial agreement.

William Mackerscy, assistant manager of the Milburn Lime and Cement Company, Ltd., gave evidence as to the duties of the men in question. The court reserved its decision.

The Labour Department also sought an interpretation of the following clause ’in the storemens and packers’ award;— “ Storemen and packers over the age of 21 years employed at work usually per formed by storemen and packers shall' receive £4 5s per week.”

Mr G. H. Lightfoot represented the department. Mr Lightfoot said that Messrs Irvine and Stevenson’s St. George Company, Ltd., a party to the storemens and packers’ award, had employed a man substantially in packing tins of jam in cases, nailing lids on the branding cases, and stacking them in stock stacks in the store: and packing jars of jam in eases and getting the cases ready for despatch to ens tomers- He was paid £4 per week, while two storemen were employed to attend to all delivery and shipping orders., The question was whether a worker employed as set out in his statement of the facts was a packer within the meaning of the award.

Mr Cookson said that Messrs Irvine and Stevenson held that the man was not a packer, as his work required no expert knowledge, but was merely mechanical The bulk of the packing' was done in the storeroom.

Arthur Fox, the employee in question said that he had gone to work with Messrs Irvine and Stevenson as a packer. His duties consisted of packing orders, which required expert knowledge, and in rush seasons he assisted in carrying tins of jam from the boiling room to the store The decision of the majority of the court was that, assuming that an employee was substantially employed in making up cases for stock, he would not come under the award as a packer. If. however, his work consisted of packing outside orders and not packing for stock, he should be classed as a packer. BUTCHERS’ AWARD. An application was also made by the Labour Department that the court give an interpretation in the butchers’ award in respect to the wages payable to a worker employed principally in the small goods department of the Salisbury Butchery and partly in the shop. While he was em ployed in the small goods deportment, the only other worker employed in that department was a youth. The manager of the company was not employed in the small goods department. Under the award a first small goodsman was entitled to £5 15s. The question the court was asked to decide was whether a small goodsman employed in these circumstances was a first small goodsman and therefore entitled to £5 15s per week. If not, to what wage was he entitled?

Mr R. G. Wilson, who represented the union, said that the man in question

wns employed for at least two-thirds of the time as small goodsman and also made small goods for two other shops. Mr Cookson said that it did not appear reasonable that the amount of time the man put in in making small goods entitled him to the award wage for a first small goodsman. The court reserved its decision.' BUILDERS’ LABOURERS’ AWARD. In connection with an application by the inspector of awards at Invercargill for an interpretation of the Otago and Southland builders and contractors’ labourers’ award, his Honor has delivered the following opinion of the court:—“ The contractor, not being a local body, cannot be a party to the Invercargill (41 miles’ radius) local bodies’ labourers’ award, which makes provision for men employed at reading work. In any event, he is a party to the Otago and Southland builders and contractors’ labourers’ award, which covers operations similar in nature to those performed for the Gore Borough Council under the contract in question. So far, as this court is concerned, the foregoing answers the question submitted. It was argued, however, that as the local bodies’ labourers’ award provided for a higher rate of wages being paid than that prescribed in the builders and contractors’ labourers’ award, the provisions of section, 3 of ‘ The Public Contracts Act, 1008,’ applied. This, it was contended, would make the higher rate payable for work done in the borough. The matter, however, is beyond the jurisdiction of this court, which is confined to matters arising under the statutes which it administers; and it appears that the proper course to adopt is to express no opinion us to the contractor’s liability to pay his workers more than the builders and contractors’ labourers’ award rates, but to leave it to the parties to test the question in a court of competent jurisdiction.” CARPENTERS’ APPRENTICESHIP ORDER. His Honor has delivered the following opinion in regard to an' application by the district registrar of apprentices at Invercargill for interpretation of the Otago • and Southland carpenters and joiners' apprenticeship order:—The court is of the opinion that the wording of the award restricts the right of an employer to employ a further apprentice to cases in which only one -apprentice (with over three years’ service) is already employed. No employer with four journeymen. two fourth-year apprentices, and one second-year apprentice is entitled to a further apprentice. SEPARATE AWARD REFUSED, His Honor has delivered the following ludgment in respect to an application by the Dunedin City Corporation and other local bodies for a separate award for engineers employed by, them:—“The court, for special reasons, made separate awards for labourers and drivers employed by local bodies, but’it has never done so for tradesmen: Over 20 local bodies are parties to’ the general engineers’ award, and the fact that two of those bodies have agreed ‘to grant their employees more favourable terms'of employuent is not sufficient justification for making a separate award for engineers employed by another local body or group of local bodies. A further ground relied upon by the union was that tramwaymen received certain holiday concessions, but it must be remembered that engineers receive overtime rates for work performed outside specified clock hours and on holidays, while tramwaymen do not. The court declines, therefore, 'to make the iward applied for. The employers cited will, however, be added as parties to the general engineers’ award."