RATIONING OF WORK

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23595, 3 September 1938, Page 7

RATIONING OF WORK

ACTION AGAINST EMPLOYERS

BALANCE OF WAGES CLAIMED PAYMENT FOR STAND-DOWN WEEK Interesting proceedings arising out of the rationing of work by a city firm during a slack period last year occupied the Supreme Court yesterday, the Chief Justice. Sir Michael Myers, presiding. The case was one in which 15 employees of Messrs Smith and Smith, Ltd., claimed a total of £269 12s from the company, being the difference between the award wages due to fhem for the period May 24 to September 13 and the amount actually paid as a result of a system of the rationing of work. Mr I. B. Stevenson appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr A. C. Stephens for the defendant company. Mr Stevenson said that the subject matter of the case was a series of 15 claims by 15 employees of the defendant company for wages alleged to be due to them. The claims were in respect of the difference between the rates of pay prescribed in the two awards under which the plaintiffs worked and the amount actually paid as a result of a system of rationing of work under which the men worked two weeks and stood down for one. The period of rationing extended from May 24 until September 13, 1937, and the difference between the weekly rate of £4 5s for that period and the amount actually paid to the 15 employees, was £269 12s, making allowance, as some of the men had done, for earnings derived from other forms of employment secured by them during their stand-down week. Absence of Agreement The plaintiffs' case, said Mr Stevenson, would be directed to proving that there was no agreement between the employees and the defendant company with regard to the rationing of work and that their standing down was the result of an order, posted in the firm's premises on May 21. It would be shown that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to work during the period when they were stood down, and that as a result of having to stand down they had suffered actual loss. In some cases the men had been successful in getting other employment, and where that had been done the men were prepared to give the company credit for such earnings as they received. Counsel stated that the effect of the rationing of work had been a greater detriment to the men than appeared at first sight. Two weeks' work and one week's standing down brought their earnings to about £2 15s pelweek, which was less than the rate prescribed for a married man with four children on sustenance. Documents in the case, including the chart of weeks worked and weeks stood down by the plaintiffs, the notice posted by the firm intimating that work would be rationed and correspondence from the defendant firm to the Department of Labour advising that the men had not been discharged and were still in the company's service, were put in by Mr Stevenson as being among the common grounds of the action. His Honor, however, suggested that they were not absolutely necessary The facts in the case were generally admitted, and it seemed to him to be a question whether the plaintiffs were entitled in law to the amounts claimed. Mr Stevenson said that in the case of two of the men an arrangement had been made for them to take their stand-down week together. He anticipated that this would be submitted by the defence as evidence of an agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant company, whereas in effect it was only a private arrangement concerning the actual time when the men should be stood down. It had no relation to the enforcement of the stand-down week. Contentions of Defence After evidence had been given by several of the plaintiffs, Mr Stephens outlined the case for the defence. The company, he said, had a paint factory, and until May 21 the demand for its goods v/as such that it was necessary to maintain two shifts. However, the demand slackened and stocks began to amount up in the store, so much so that it then became necessary for the company to do something in the matter of shortening staff. It had two alternatives before it—dismissals or rationing—and it decided that the more humane course to adopt would be rationing. It was arranged that the 15 men should go off in groups of three in regular order, and this was done. There was no suggestion of any complaint or objection from the men until very much later. The scheme worked smoothly, special provision being mado in two cases for men to have two weeks off continuously. The demand for the company's goods had not increased, and showed no signs of increasing, and the company decided to terminate the rationing scheme on September •3. when it dismissed four senior men, who were working under the scheme, and four juniors who were not. It was not until the rationing scheme was ended r.nd the men dismissed that the works manager had a visit from an official of the Labour Department. After some discussions a summons was issued by the department, claiming penalties for breaches of the awards The magistrate who heard the case convicted the company, but poirted out that the breaches were nominal, and awarded a penalty of one shilling only The company then considered the' matter of an appeal, but then decided to leave the issue with this civil claim. Counsel submitted that on the evidence already heard 'here was a tacit agreement for intermittent service which was not inconsistent with the awards He also pointed out that both awards allowed deductions from the weekly wage for " absence from work through no fault of the employers." Judgment For Pldintiffs After hearing legal argument, his Honor said that having come to a clear opinion on the matter there was no advantage to be gained by delaying delivery of his judgment by committing it to writing. Up till May 21, 1937, the defendant com6 any had been working two shifts, nfortunately a slackening of trade occurred and the company decided for a time at least to discontinue the working of two shifts. One shift was operated for a period and it was found that the services of some of the men were not required full time. It was clear, however, that what the awards under which these men were working intended was continuous employment. It was quite competent, however, for

the company to terminate, by giving not fewer than seven days' notice, the agreement of employment with as many of its men as it could not find work for by reason of the altered trading conditions. The company, nevertheless, did not adopt that course, and he could quite understand why it hesitated to dispense altogether with the services of some of its employees. And in this connection he would like to emphasise that the case involved no moral obloquy at all as far as the company was concerned. It had acted for the best for itself and its employees. A rationing scheme had been adopted and as a result each worker involved lost one week's work in three. He was satisfied that there was no ground for holding that there was, between the employer and the employees, any agreement in the matter of a variation of the contract of employment for which the respective awards provided. Indeed had the parties purported to vary the terms of employment the agreement would have had no validity, as it would have meant an acceptance of less than the provisions of the awards. It was also impossible to contend that the company had determined the employment of the plaintiffs in May. In his opinion this was definitely shown by the letter from the company to the Department of Labour, which stated that the men were still in the company's service The company could have dismissed some of its employees altogether and had it done so the workers remaining would have continued to earn the award rates of pay and there would have been no action.

"The company acted in perfect good faith," said his Honor, "but in my opinion it also acted in contravention of the implications, though not the express provisions, of the awards. Unless the non-payment of the wages claimed by the plaintiffs comes under the clauses of the awards dealing with absence from work through sickness or default, the defendant company can have no answer to the case. On the subject of the fault of the employers with respect to the discontinuance of employment, the provisions of the awards must be interpreted in a non-technical sense. In a broad sense it was due to the fault of the employer that the men were not kept at work inasmuch as the company altered its policy and said there was not sufficient work to keep all the men engaged. The company cannot say that the men were absent from work through no fault of its own, and each and every one of the plaintiffs, with the exception of one in respect of whom Mr Stephens has agreed to accept an affidavit in lieu of his oral evidence, must receive judgment for the amount claimed. His Honor fixed costs to be paid by the defendant company as for one action, the amount to be based on the full sum recovered, with witnesses' expenses and disbursements to be fixed by the registrar.