TIMBER MILLERS’ EMPLOYEES

Southland Times, Issue 23376, 7 December 1937, Page 11

TIMBER MILLERS’ EMPLOYEES

PAYMENT OF WAGES QUESTIONED IMPORTANT CASES HEARD AT NELSON (United Press Association) NELSON, December 6. Cases described as of national importance were before the Magistrates Court today. Two actions were brought by the Inspector of Awards (Mr _D. Rollo) against timber millers, the Magistrate (Mr T. E. Maunsell, S.M.) holding that he had no jurisdiction to deal with them. , L. and J. Baigent were charged with committing a breach of ihe Nelson Timberyards, Sawmills and Box Factory Employees’ Award by employing Walter John Quinney as a leading breaker-down and failing to pay him the rate of wages prescribed in the award. The charge against H. Baigent and Sons was of employing H. Gardiner as head bushman and paying him 18/6 a day instead of 19/- as provided in the award. Mr W. V. Rout, counsel for detendants, said he wanted to submit a preliminary point, asking that proceedings be either struck out or stayed. The Labour Department had arranged for a disputes committee to deal with the matter but the secretary of the union wrote saying it was provided for in the award and it was not necessary to refer it to the disputes committee. The case was of considerable importance, not only locally but also throughout New Zealand. If, at the behest of a secretary of a union, the terms of an award could be set aside, it was obviously going to nullify this important provision in every award in New Zealand, which provided that all these questions should be referred to a disputes committee and that the powers of the court should not be invoked until the committee had considered it. JURISDICTION TAKEN AWAY Counsel submitted that the jurisdiction of the court was taken away until the matter had been referred to the disputes committee. The Magistrate: If it is referred to the disputes committee, what then? Mr Rout: If the employer does not abide by a decision, then action can be taken. If the committee did not agree, the case went to the Arbitration Court. A written application had been made in the terms of the award for this matter to go before the committee. The inspector said that Baigent and Turley, secretary of the union, were both members of the disputes committee.

Mr Turley said it was useless going to the committee because no agreement could be reached. The award definitely laid down the rates of pay for these workers and the department had to bring the case before the court for a decision. He admitted there was a dispute, the contention being that the rates of pay were specificially dealt with and could not be departed from. The dispute was that in the case of one worker he was substantially employed on a breaking-down saw. He was the only worker on this saw except that another worker sharpened the saw for him. Being the only worker he was entitled to be classed as the leading breaker-down. The Magistrate asked whether that was not a question of fact to be decided by the disputes committee. The inspector referred to another case where the decision of- the court was that if there was only one worker he must be classed as first or leading man. DECISION BY CUSTOM Mr Rout said the award provided for rates of wages, but there was no way of deciding other than custom, which man came into which category. That was precisely the question applicable to Quinney. He was the only man on this bench. He did not sharpen his saw and there was overwhelming evidence that a leading breaker-down did, and must, sharpen his saw to come into that qualification. The decision quoted did not bear on this case. The question was did he come under one or other of these descriptions. Turley’s statement that there was no chance of the disputes’ committee coming to an agreement did not come into it. It must go to the committee even if it was a farce.

The inspector said that a clause provided wh.. -e say a doctor was employed he would sharpen all the saws. The Magistrate queried whether that was not a matter of fact, which it was for the committee to go into. If what Turley says was true it seemed a pity that file question had been raised but he was bound to take it into consideration.

In answer to the Magistrate Mr Rout said the dispute was whether the man carrying out Quinney’s duties was covered by the description of a leading breaker-down.

The Magistrate said it seemed clear that he had no jurisdiction. It was a matter of fact for the committee to decide.

Mr Rout pointed out that it affected all mills throughout New Zealand. The Magistrate advised the parties to go formally to the disputes’ committee, then, if they did not agree, to go to the Arbitration Court for a decision. He adjourned the cases sine die. He was not accepting jurisdiction, but if

the inspector had something to bring before him then he would review it. If it was a matter of national importance he agreed that it should go before the Arbitration Court.