ARBITRATION COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25454, 8 February 1944, Page 2

ARBITRATION COURT

FURNITURE TRADES AWARD QUESTION OF SKILL RAISED An appeal against the decision of Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., in a prosecution brought by the inspector of awards against the Otago Chair Company, Ltd., was heard before the Arbitration Court —Mr Justice Tyndall and Messrs A. L. Monteith and W. Cecil Prime—during its sitting in Dunedin yesterday. Mr J. P. Ward, representing the appellant company, said that the appeal was based on a simple matter of fact—whether the staining of woodwork prior to polishing was or was not skilled work. On November 23, 1943, Mr C. P. Brookes, for the inspector of awards at Dunedin, proceded against the company for an alleged breach of the New Zealand furniture trade employees’ award, 1938, in that the company did, between November, 1942, and October, 1943, employ Charles Sherbourne on polishing work and did fail to pay the rate of wages stipulated in the award for a polisher’s work. The magistrate fixed a nominal penalty of 10s, remarking that the work seemed to be, at least to a certain extent, skilled, and that, as staining appeared to be an essential part of polishing, it must be considered that Sherbourne, as a labourer, had been employed on skilled work. Grounds of Appeal “ The Otago Chair Company, better known as Butterfield's, Ltd., is a large manufacturing concern,” Mr Ward said, stating the grejunds of the appeal. “ The company uses the plunge method of staining for about one-third of its output. Articles are immersed in a bath of stain and then wiped. For this purpose, the company employed Sherbourne, who had been engaged on a variety of odd jobs about the factory. From time to time Sherbourne had been employed staining either with the bath or the brush method. “ The union raised the question whether he was doing skilled work, and the parties agreed to abide by the Labour Department’s ruling,” Mr Ward continued. " The department, on being asked to give a ruling, said that the work was unskilled. The union decided to take the matter further, and a prosecution followed for a breach of ■ the award. This appeal against the magistrate’s decision is not a personal one, but is based on a principle of considerable importance so far as manufacturers are concerned.

“ I contend that Sherbourne’s duties in regard to staining required no more skill than is involved in many domestic tasks, such as washing and drying dishes,” Mr Ward added. “ Dictionary interpretations suggest that skill implies a degree of training with resultant dexterity, and this does not apply in the present instance.” Mr Monteith (union assessor) drew attention to the fact that in the Magistrate’s Court proceedings, evidence had shown that Sherbourne had been instructed in staining by an apprentice. Department’s View

Mr Brookes, who appeared for the department, stated that an official of the Labour Department had given an interim opinion that the work was not skilled, but this local interpretation had not been confirmed by higher officials. The department had not sought a penalty so much as a ruling whether work of this sort was skilled or unskilled. If Mr Ward's contention were to be followed to its logical conclusion, then there would be such a division of labour that few men could claim to be doing really skilled work, and the employees would suffer in consequence. a Witnesses at the lower court hearing were called to give evidence along similar lines to that already given, and to explain some aspects of the case in more detail. , , An adjournment was then taken to enable the court and the interested parties to visit the company's factory and see the operation under dispute in actual practice. In his final submissions, Mr Ward said that while the staffing situation had eased on account of the release of some employees from the armed forces, the situation might yet arise when an unskilled man might have to be called on to do the staining. It was an insult to common sense, he contended, to say that any degree of skill was required in the work that the court had witnessed being performed during its inspection of the factory. There was no question of the firm wishing to deprive the employee of extra money for such work as this, but it thought it had the right to employ an unskilled man on work which, in its view, was not skilled. . The court reserved its decision.