BAKERS’ HOLIDAYS

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 92, 9 July 1927, Page 9

BAKERS’ HOLIDAYS

ACTIONS FOR PENALTIES HOLIDAY INFRACTIONS H 1 S Majesty’s Birthday, a specified holiday in the baking trade, gave rise to two actions for breaches of the award in the Arbitration Court this morning. A regular customer of George Kent and Sons, Ltd., bakers, Newmarket, urgently needed bread on that day, so Kent’s outside foreman put some stale bread into a private car and delivered it to him. The clause of the bakers’ and pastrycooks’ award specified the holidays to be granted and prohibited all baking and delivery of bread on those days. Mr. J. Hollows, Inspector of Awards, proceeded against Kents for a breach of the award. Mr. G. P. Finlay Appeared for the firm. In giving judgment, his Honour found that no breach had been committed. In prohibiting “all” delivery the clause was unenforceable. The award could only cover the workers in the particular industry, and could not cover workers under another award such as drivers. In the case of Walter Buchanan, Ltd., the men had been brought back to work in the evening of the King’s Birthday. It was contended this was an infraction of the clause forbidding “all” baking. For the employer, Mr. S. E. Wright said that the firm was following a long-established custom, though it was technically a breach of the award. The holiday was given the men on the preceding day. In his jLidgment his Honour said that though there might not* have been a breach of the spirit of the award there had been a breach of the letter. He imposed no penalty. Apparently the full effect of the clause had been overlooked when the parties had agreed to it, but the court could not rectify the oversight, though it could give effect ,to any modification agreed on between the parties.