AWARD POINTS

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 37, 6 May 1927, Page 3

AWARD POINTS

INTERPRETATIONS SOUGHT ARBITRATION COURT CASES An application for interrirptatinr, i “? Industrial timber workers award was heard yeste rr\ ay at tbe Arbitration Court. Ihe question as issue was whether a worker who was employed for less tha " fi Sht r bours was entitled to be paid the full day’s pay, or onlv an amount proportionate to the time worked. Mr. E. J. Phelan, secretary of the Timber Workers’ Union, referred to the action of the Kauri Timber Company, which asked employees to commence work at 7.30 a.m., and on one day sent them home at 12.30 p m without any excuse. The men were only paid for the time worked in this case, and this was illegal under the terms of the award, which provided for payment of a daily rate. Mr. S. E. Wright, who conducted the case for the employers, said that he had evidence to show that the system of deduction from the daily rate of pay, when hours were lost, had been in operation for 35 years. Evidence showed that there were cases where men had been dismissed before the termination of the day’s work, and paid the daily rate. His Honour Mr. Justice Frazer said that he would consider the whole matter. Electrical Foreman The question of whether a worker who carried out instructions from a superior, and had charge of a gang of men employed on work enumerated in the award under clause la, was entitled to be classed as a foreman within the meaning of the award was also considered. Mr. S. E. Wright, on behalf of the employers, contended that the fact that a linesman was directing other workers, under the general control of a foreman, did not constitute the linesman a foreman within the meaning of the award. Mr. M. P. O’Leary, who represented the Auckland Electrical Workers’ Union, contended that a foreman linesman was a charge hand, who took instructions from the supervisor or overseer, and who worked substantially along with the men on the job. Judgment was reserved. Electrical Workers An application for interpretation of the electrical workers’ award in the question of whether workers employed in digging holes, erecting poles, and fitting and bracing arms on poles, were linesmen’s assistants when working under the directions of a pole-gang foreman, was also heard. Mr. S. E. Wright, on behalf of the employers, submitted that the definition of linesmen’s assistants’ work as contained in the award contemplated that the work of an assistant linesman was to assist a linesman at linesman’s work, as specified in the definition of linesmen.

Mr. M. P. O’Leary, who appeared for the Auckland Electrical Workers’ Union, contended that ‘‘linesmen’s assistants’ work” had been universally acknowledged as all work done in connenction with the erection and maintenance of power lines, where any worker assisted the person or persons in charge, whethef* he was the foreman linesman or leading hand. His Honour Mr. Justice Frazer said that he would consider the question.