FORTY-HOUR WEEK

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23223, 22 June 1937, Page 3

FORTY-HOUR WEEK

EFFECT ON PIECE WORKERS QUESTION OF INCREASE IMPORTANT TEST CASE A test case affecting every industry in New Zealand in which piece work is carried out was heard in the Magistrate’s Court before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., yesterday, when the Department of Labour took action against Messrs Ross and Glendining, Ltd., claiming that piece workers employed by the defendant company had been insufficiently paid since the introduction of the 40-hour week on September 1 last year. Decision was reserved. Mr G. F. Grieve represented the department, and Mr J. M. Paterson appeared for the defendant company. Mr Grieve said the action was brought as a test case, and affected the interpretation of all awards in force on September 1, 1936, and still in force, in which provision was made for payment for piece work as distinct from ordinary rates. The woollen industry was now working under the 1928 award, which had been amended in accordance with the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act of last year, providing that the introduction of the 40-hour week should not involve any reduction in wages. The department’s case rested almost completely on the provision in the Act that “ the ordinary rate of weekly wages ” should not be reduced. , j, Agreement had been reached by the parties on the facts of the case, Mr Grieve continued. One employee, a piece-work wool sorter, had been selected at random, and his case was the subject of the claim made against the company The department admitted that the defendant company had paid him the ruling rate between July 1, and August 31, 1936, and it was agreed that after September 1, 1936, it had continued to pay him at the same rate. The department contended that the basis of remuneration should have been increased by forty five-fortieths after September 1 owing to the fact that on that date thejiours of work were reduced from 45 a week to 40. The company had made that increase in the wages of weekly workers, and it was contended that piece workers should have benefited to the same extent. Replying to a question by the magistrate, Mr Grieve said he knew there was difficulty in arriving at an ordinary weekly wage in the case of piece workers, but it was suggested that the rates must be increased at the same rate as for the daily and weekly workers. Figures which had been taken out showed that, while in November and December, 1936, the employee in question had been earning slightly more than in the corresponding period in 1935, taking into account the fact that there had been a 10 per cent, restoration in the meantime, in January and February, 1937, it was seen that the worker was showing smaller earnings under the 40-hour week than the 45-hour week. Mr Paterson said the case was one of very great importance, not only to Messrs Ross and Glendining, Ltd., who were really the nominal defendants, and the wool industry as a whole, but to piece work in every industry in New Zealand. In the strict sense, no rates of pay for piece workers were fixed in the award other than the provision that they must not be below the minimum wage for time workers. There were no uniform rates for piece work in the woollen industry in New Zealand, but Messrs Ross and Glendining, Ltd., paid considerably more than any other mill in New Zealand, and the piece work men earned appreciably more than men on time work.

Mr Paterson contended that it was impossible to fix a weekly rate of pay for piece workers, who were under no contract and no obligation with respect to hours of work, and it was accordingly absurd to suggest that these men had been under a weekly wage or under the 40-hour week since it had been introduced. Piece workers who had had mixed time had been given the increase in respect of any time work they had done.

“ The sheet anchor of my argument is that the provision in last year’s Act that wages should not be reduced on account of the shortening of the hours does not apply to piece work at all,” Mr Paterson added. “ The Act says there shall be no reduction of wages, not that there shall be an increase in wages. To bring it within the Act it would be necessary to have for piece work an ordinary rate of weekly wages that must not be reduced, and there is no such thing in the award except the minimum wage. There is_ no uniform weekly rate for piece workers.”

The magistrate reserved his decision.