INTERPRETATION SOUGHT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26778, 22 May 1948, Page 3

INTERPRETATION SOUGHT

HOSPITAL DOMESTIC WORKERS’ AWARD ARBITRATION COURT HEARING p.A. AUCKLAND, May 21. An application by the inspector of awards for interpretation of the New Zealand hospital domestic workers’ award was heard before Judge Tyndall in the Arbitration Court. When the last award was issued employers were required to make retrospective wage payments to their employees. These involved extra payments for special duties, and the New Zealand Hospital Boards’ Association claimed that these did not come within the meaning of the term “ rates' of wages ” and that they were, therefore, not.required to be retrospective. The court, having already considered the written arguments of the advocates, decided to hear counsel on th? limits of the court in exercising its retrospective jurisdiction as to payment of wages. The judge agreed with Mr S. G. Stephenson, counsel for the employers, that the issue was of considerable importance in so far as it affected the method of computing overtime payments in all industries. Counsel for the employees was Mr A. J. Mazengarb, Mr J. Hanlon was the employers’ advocate, and Mr F. G. Young appeared for the employees. Mr Stephenson claimed that the wages were consideration for work done. Payments for discomforts which workers might suffer in the course of their work were not rates of wages, although extra payment for skill might be so included, he said. The court was not limited in its right to authorise retrospective payments for services rendered, said Mi* Mazenguib. He considered that wages included regular payments for any particular task. The court was asked to clarify five points in the award. They involved payments laid down for specified hospital duties. The decision of the court, which was reserved, will affect the amount of retrospective overtime due to these workers, as well as future payments.