ELECTRICAL WORKERS

Southland Times, Issue 19123, 15 December 1923, Page 5

ELECTRICAL WORKERS

BREACH OF AWARD ALLEGED. WHAT CONSTITUTES “COUNTRY WORK. At a of the Invercargill Magistrate’s Court on Monday last the Inspector of Awards proceeded against Parkinsons, Ltd., bringing an action for penalty for breach of electrical workers’ award. The evidence showed that the defendant secured a large contract for electrical work from the Roxburgh Power Board and opened a branch office in Roxburgh with a resident manager and stores plerk. Several men who had been employed in the out districts of Invercargill and whose work had come to an end, heard of the defendant’s contract. They asked the manager in Invercargill for employment and were told that the manager in Roxburgh was engaging all labour on the spot. The men then went to Roxburgh and were engaged by the local manager and worked there at the award rates and more in some cases. The Inspector claims that this constituted “country work” and that the men should be paid 30/- a week additional, in lieu of board. In his reserved judgment, Mr G. Cruickshank, S.M. said:—“Section 12 of the award defines ‘country work’ as that performed by a worker when it necessitates his lodging elsewhere than at his usual place of residence. “ ‘Country work’ has thus more than a bucolic significance. If a plumber in Upper Hutt had a job in the City of Wellington and took his men there, they would be engaged in ‘country work.’ “The section pre-supposes that the worker has a home or place of residence when he is engaged by his employer. This home would generally be in the same town as that of the employer. When sent away to an outside job the employer must convey him to the work and board him while he is on the job. “The worker is thus saved theh expense of keeping up two homes. I cannot see how, where a company has a branch in a certain town where it is carrying out a contract and the branch manager engages casual men on the spot, men who flock in looking for work from all parts of the Dominion, it can be called a case of ‘country work.’

“The section speaks of ‘place of residence? In the award mentioned in the Dominion Cement Company case, Vol. XVL p. 464, it is called ‘sleeping away from his home.’ Now, what is the place of residence or home of a worker who arrives in a town seeking a job which he eventually gets? Surely his home is in the new town where he gets the work. In this case the home of these men was Roxburgh. When the men had to do work some miles out from Roxburgh they would have to be conveyed out and back to Roxburgh and boarded if aw’ay overnight. That was what was done here. The Inspector of Factories, however, contends that because the head office of the company was in Invercargill and some of the men spoke to the manager in Invercargill about the work, that makes the employment ‘country work.’ The manager in Invercargill told the men they must apply to the Roxburgh manager who had charge of the work and employed the necessary labour. The Inspector’s contention would mean that the homes of all these men were in Invercargill. But none of them had homes in Invercargill; their homes were in Roxburgh. “Men of this type change their residences from time to time as ther employment requires. The men have in fact all declared that their homes are in Roxburgh. The Inspector urged that some other firms—say in Dunedin—tendered for this contract and they calculated on paying the board of all their men. If a firm in Dunedin had a gang of men who worked for them in Dunedin, whose homes were in Dunedin, and they sent them all to Roxburgh, wishing to employ their own men in preference to picking up casual labour on the spot, they certainly would have to pay the extra board, and the firm was wise in including the board when making up their tender. But here the defendant trusted to get casual labour and they were fortunate enough to get it. These casuals as I have pointed out were not engaged in ‘country work.’ “There must be judgment for defendant, -