HOLIDAY ALLOWANGE

Taranaki Daily News, 5 August 1937, Page 8

HOLIDAY ALLOWANGE

DAIRY FACTORY WORK ARBITRAHON COURT HEARING. DECISION RESERVED IN APPEAL. Decision was reserved in an appeal in the Arbitration Court'at New Plymouth. yesterday against the decision of the magistrate at Stratford in a case between the inspector of awards and the Cardiff Coiop. Dairy Company in which a claim ' for a penalty for an alleged breach of an award was dismissed. The case arose out of the restoration of "cuts" and the making of new awards and is of particular interest to dairy companies and workers in dairy factories in Tar|tnaki. Mr. R. H. Quilliam appeared for the. inspector of awards, Mr. F. Wilson, and Mr. J. F. B. Stevenson for the Cardiff Dairy Company. The court cctnsiSted of Mr. Justice O'Regan and Messrs. W. Cecil Prime and A. L. Monteith. Under the original award in force when the reductions were niade .the workers in the industry worked seven days a week and received three weeks' holiday on full pay. Under a new industrial agreement made in 1934 , the work was reorganised on a six-day week basis, and the question was whether the workers were entitled to the three weeks' holiday as well as the sixday week. As the holiday allowance was not granted a test case was brought by the inspector of awards against the Cardiff company, which was heard at Stratford in April last. The magistrate held that thfe new agreement was not in substitution of the original agreement and therefore the provisions did not apply, and he declined to consider the point whether there had been a breach of the award. The matter was therefore brought to the Arbitration Court by way of appeal for determination. Case For Department. In opemng the case Mr. Quilliam said the short point of the matter was whether the industrial agreement of September, 1934, now in force,. replaced the award which was in force in May, 1931. Mr. Quilliam stated. that the industrial agreement with which the case was concerned was not in force. at the date of the making of the general order of the court in 1931. The effect of the Finance Act, 1936, was to destroy the • effect of the general order, and to provide that wages should be restored to the ruling rates in 1931 before the making of the general order. In this dis-, trict there was no agreement or award between November, 1932, and September, 1934. Shortly after the cancelling of the award in 1930 the employers drew up a schedule of conditions and wages for . the purpose obtaining some uniformity of working in the Taranaki district. This did not become an "industrial agreement," but many of the factories, among which was the respondent com- . pany.'s factory, worked under it and had a copy of it posted on the factory notice board. It was submitted, therefore, that . the .union had no part in the formulating of this schedule. . It was - not'signed by any member on behalf of 'the union but ; was an agreement between ' the employees and some of the employers, but not an agreement under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. ; r Counsel's Submission. Mr. Quilliam submitted that ihe mere : ; passage of time between the cancellation of one award and the making of a new . one did not prevent the new award from being one in substitution of the former award. He argued that the arr'ange- - ments made by some of. the companies during the period when there was no award or industrial agreement in force were purely voluntary between the workers in any factory and their employers, but there was npthing in those conditions which ..was enforceable under the Industrial Conciliation -and Arbiigration Act. On that ground he- submitted the. new agreement . of 1934 >was in substitution of the award which was in force in 1931. - t If the court held that the new agreement was in substitution of the qrigipal award then it had to decide whether there had been a breach of that agreement. The magistrate, holding that the, agreement was not in substitution of the former award^ did not decide whether there had been a breach. Mr. Steyenson said the case was a serious one to' the dairy industry, and if the submission for. the appellant was upheld by the court it would involve the industry in an additional annual payment of from £25,000 to £30,000. Mr, Justice O'Regan said the court was not concerned with the effect of its judgment but only with the meaning of the statute. Mr. Stevenson admitted that, but emphasised the pdint that the effect of its judgment' should be in the mind of the court. s ; Nothing to Replace.. Because the original award had been cancelled there was nothing which the new agreement could replace or be in substitution for, submitted Mr. Stevenson. The schedule of conditions under which most of the factories worked when there was no award or agreement in force was accepted by the members of the union, who worked under it and accepted the scale of wages prescribed by that schedule. The question of whether that schedule was signed by the workers was not of importance. At common law any worker could have sued for wages under that schedule, veven though it had never been registered as an industrial agreement. What the new industrial agreement did was to supersede, or was in substitution for, the schedule under which the men were working. The old award, being cancelled, did not have any' "place" which could be taken by the new agreement. What was intended was that workers should be placed in a position not inferior to that in which they were in 1931. The court could not make the workers* position better than 1931, but if their present conditions were better than 1931 the court could not reduce them to the 1931 level. ' Mr. Justice Frazer in a memorandum after the granting of the award in 1931, said Mr. Stevenson; stated that he desired the reorganisation of the dairy industry. Cneese factories at : the time were working a seven days' week and to remedy that position the award provided for three weeks' holiday on full pay each year. At some expense and inconvenience factories had reorganised the industry and employees were now working a six days' week. Consequently, it was contended that the three weeks' holiday should not be granted, for in Mr. Stevenson's opinion had a six days' week existed in 1931 Mr. Justice Frazer would not have included it. Mr. Stevenson said the Factories Adt dealt with rates of pay, and he contended that a holiday was a condition bf employment. The Finance Act, 1936, had restored the rates of remuneration in operation before the "cuts" but had , not restored conditions of employment. Moreover, Mr. Stevenson was bf the opinion that as there was a hiatus of some years during which no award was in operation, the present award could not therefore be considered a substitute for the 1931 award. It replaced, instead, the private agreement which . had existed between the employees and emp}oy» ers. • • • "%'%