INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23499, 13 May 1938, Page 15

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE

CLAIMS AGAINST COMPANY ALLEGED BREACHES OF AWARD A case of considerable importance was heard in the Mataura Magistrate’s Court before Mr R. C. Abernethy, S.M., when Mr H. M. Hopper inspector of factories, proceeded against the New Zealand Paper Mills, Ltd., on several charges of alleged breaches of the paper mill workers’ award. —Mr J. M. Paterson, of Dunedin, appeared for the defendant company. The charges were as follows:—(1) Employing three shift men, Jorn Anderson, Daniel McGowan, and John McCartney, on a shift of a lesser period than eight hours contrary to the provisions of the award; (2) employing two weekly workers, Norris Johnston and Hector Valentine, during the period from December 11, 1937, to January 8, 1938, and failing to pay the said weekly workei’S for Christmas Day, Boxing Day and New Year’s Day, contrary to the award; (3) failure to pay award rates to William McKinnon, Robert Mullen and Patrick Sheehy; (4) employing a first finisher, Allan Richardson, and failing to pay him award rates. The inspector claimed a penalty of £ 10 in respect of each charge.

Mr Hopper proceeded with the third charge first, stating that during the period referred to the men were entitled to Is 10 4-5 d an hour, but since the introduction of the 40hour week the department claimed that the award rate should have been increased to 2s 0 l-5d an hour. Certain of the workers were specifically classified under the award, and others whose duties could not be classified were named as “ all other adult workers.” The company contended that the award did not apply to these workers, because they were not actually engaged in the manufacturing of paper, but the department held the view that the terms of the award were quite clear. A summary of the duties carried out by the men in question was given by Mr Paterson, who said that the employees occasionally worked within, the precincts of the factory, and at* times acted as substitutes for classified workers. On such occasions they were paid accordingly. He contended that the men were engineers’ labourers and not paper mill employees within the meaning of the award. The management regarded them as casuals or handy men, and the onus was on the department to prove that they were covered b ,r the award.

Dealing with the first charge. Mr Hopper pointed out that the award specified a shift as eight hours. The three men in question completed a shift at midnight on Fridays, when their 40 hours had been worked. On Saturday morning the men were required to wol'k an additional shift of four hours at overtime rates of pay. It was his contention that a broken shift could not be worked, as the award defined a shift as eight hours, and he quoted several recent court decisions in support of his view.

Mr Paterson stated that the decision of the magistrate on this point would be of great importance to the whole of New Zealand, as a big sum was involved. He was of the opinion that the inspector had been misled on certain points. “ It has been contended that a shift can apply only to a working week of from Monday to Friday,” said Mr Paterson, “ and that we cannot talk of a shift on non-working days. Only five shifts can be worked a week, and if any more is done it must be regarded as overtime. Under the award it is ridiculous to talk of broken shifts, and the argument of the department is founded on a complete misapprehension,” he added. Referring to the second charge, Mr Hopper stated that the men were weekly workers, who finished a week on the Friday before Christmas Day and another week on the day before New Year’s Day. In each case they received payment for a full week of 40 hours, but he contended that they were entitled to payment for Christmas Day and New Year’s Day, which the company regarded as non-working days for which no payment was necessary.

At this stage both the inspector and counsel for the company agreed to delete the claim for Boxing Day.

On the fourth charge Mr Hopper stated that Richardson could be defined as a finisher, and should receive 2s 22-5 d an hour instead of 2s 0 l-sd. There mizht be some difficulty in arriving at a decision as to what constituted a first finisher.

Evidence was given by the employee, Richardson, who described the class of work he was engaged in and his duties at the mill, and at the conclusion he was cross-examined at some length by Mr Paterson about his qualifications for the position Howard L. Dolamore, general manager for New Zealand Paper Mills, Ltd., and John Hart, manager of the Mataura Mill, also gave evidence.

At the conclusion of the hearing the magistrate said he would reserve his decision on all the charges