TWO MEN SUFFICIENT

Taranaki Daily News, 27 March 1937, Page 9

TWO MEN SUFFICIENT

EMPLOYEES IN TWO-VAT FACTORY. POSITION OF WORKING MANAGER. The question whether a manager and one mian were sufficient for a two-vat cheese factory was answered affirmatively on Thursday by Mr. W. H. Woodward, S.M., when giivng judgment for the Royal Oak Dairy Company Ltd. against the Labour Department, which submitted there had been a breach of an industrial agreement. The case rested upon the interpretation of terms used in the Taranaki creameries, cheese and butter factories employees 'industrial agreement. From September 7 to November 22, 1936, and again from January 1 to February 26 the company employed only two men in its two-vat factory, one of them being the manager. Relying on a clause stating that "one man shall be employed to each standard vat of 900 gaUons," the department, through Mr. F. Wilson, submitted a breach was committed. The argument in support was that a manager was not to be included in the count of men employed and therefore that there should be employed one man to each of the two vats in addition to the manager. It was stated by Mr. J. H. Sheat for the company that the manager was a working manager, and -in giving his decision on Thursday the magistrate pointed out that this had not been denied by the department. "The terms 'manager,' 'worker,' 'hand' and 'man' are all used in • the agreement and none of them . is defined," commented Mr. Woodward. "But wherever there is a clear reference to the employees other than the manager they are called either 'workers' or 'hands' but never 'men.' " Referring to the way in which the terms were used in two places in the agreement, the magistrate said it was there shown that though the manager was not included in the terms "worker" or "hands," there was nothing to show that he was not. included in the term "man." One clause provided that where one vat was in use a youth or other assistance might be employed at the discretion of the manager. Mr. Woodward held that this suggested that in a onevat factory the manager, in addition to supervising, was employed at the vat. He was therefore unable to see why in a two-vat factory the manager should not be counted as a man employed at a vat when, in fact, he was so employed. If the clause were read in the way the department submitted that in a six-vat factory, where' the manager was fully occupied with supervising, there would be only five men to work six vats; but that was not so, commented the magistrate, for in that case the manager would not be among those employed at the vats and a sixth "hand" would have to be employed. "This is a proceeding for a penalty," concluded the magistrate, "and iff the words used in the industrial agreement are not apt to convey the meaning argued by the department the court should not strain them to include it. . . . To hold that a working manager who, in fact, works at the vat is not to be counted among the men employed at the vats would, I think, be such a straining of language." On the application of Mr. Wilson security for appeal was fixed at £7 7s.