DISPUTE ABOUT OVERTIME.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 15132, 3 February 1920, Page 3

DISPUTE ABOUT OVERTIME.

(Per Press Association.) CHRISTOHUROH, last night. A point of considerable interest to both employers and workers was involved m three cases which ealiie before Mr. S. E. McCarthy, 8.M., m the Magistrate's Coutt, When the. Inspector of Awnl'ds asked for <l penalty of £100 each against the Christchurcli branch 'of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, the United Bbiiterm.a_.ers' Union, 'and the Ohristchurch Iron and Brass Moulders' Union. The cases were the first- of their kind m the Dominion. | The inspector aUeged that a breach of section 110 of the statute had occurred, m that the member., of the unions specified had combined to defeat tlie provisions of that section of the Arbitration Act by deciding to work no overtime until the employers agreed to take into account. When computing the amount payable foi* overtime, the War bonus awarded by the Arbitration Court m addition to the existing flat rate. Tho inspector explained that the three ' awards referred to had been, amended •by the Court m September last. Provision had been made for an hourly rale of pay and overtime, and the amendments provided foi* a war bonus, a r special clause to each amendment stat- ! ing that m computing overtime the bonus should not be taken into conj sideration. Tlie members of the Unions ' concerned were either not satisfied with the order of the Court of -.ise they thought that the Court did not intend what was actually the meaning of those clauses. •Special meetings were held to discuss the matter, and it Was- decided that the new order did not meet' the workers fairly, the outcome being that a ballot -was takeii and an almost unanimous vote cast m favor of refusing to work overtime until the employers agreed to take tile bonus into consideration ■ when computing overtime. The Employers' Association, was notified of the decision, which was also advertised. The employers; concerned having urgent orders to complete, agreed to the demands, under protest, and notified the unions, giving their reasons for compliance with the demands and advising ,that the matter would be referred td the Labor Department. Tho Inspector submitted that the action of the Unions could reasonably be held to have been intended to defeat the overtime clauses bf the awards. i For the defence, Mr. P. J". O'Regan said the facts -were admitted, but they r disclosed not the offence the men were charged with— the serious offence of combining to defeat the provisions of the award. Aa a matter of fact, before the award was amended it had been tho practice of the . employers to compute overtime on the basis of the flat rate, plus the overtime rate, and the effect of the amendment had been to reduce wages substantially. Naturally the men had become very angry, but m {view of what had been the practice of the employers previously they had notj thought that m talcing "the action they , had taken they were violating the : award. Oil the other hand they had , thought they were quit.o justified m do- ■> dining to work overtime. _ There had | been no trace of their having combined to defeat the provisions of the award, ; and Mr. McCarthy himself m a previous decision had 1 held' ttiat there was not a breach of the award" if there was no intention to defeat its provisions. As a matter of fact, concluded counsel, the "storm" had been oyer m an hour, as the employers had agreed to pay for overtime as before. Decision was reserved.