The Timaru Herald SATURDAY, JULY 12, 1930. HAMPERING INDUSTRY.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18617, 12 July 1930, Page 8

The Timaru Herald SATURDAY, JULY 12, 1930. HAMPERING INDUSTRY.

So complete and wide-reaching are the statutory provisions imposed upon people who are courageous enough, in these difficult times, to engage in husiness that involves the employment of workers, and so anxious is everybody, from the Prime Minister down to the youngest worker, to find employment for all the people, that it comes as a surprise to discover that the. Labour Department has laid down a policy for the control of pertain industries which takes no regard to the nature of the business involved, nor tends to facilitate the smooth running of the factories coming within the scope of the edict. It may not be easy to convince the Labour Department that its policy is harsh and unreasonable, but it will be difficult for the Department to convince the people that the working of overtime for an hour or so in a well-equipped pastrycook’s establishment is dangerous or hurtful to the health of the persons employed. The prosecution of a Timaru pastrycook, by the locaL Inspector of Factories, acting upon the instructions of the Labour Department, has attracted considerable attention among employers of labour in this district. So much has been heard of late of the national responsibilities of all classes, and the obligations of employers of labour to hesitate before sending out even one worker into the swelling ranks of the unemployed, that it will come as a rude shock to most people to learn that the Labour Department has embarked upon a policy which may result in the closing of one establishment at least, with the inevitable discharge of a number of workers. In the case under review, the Inspector of Factories instigated a prosecution against a well and favourably known pastrycook for having committed the awful offence in the eyes of the Labour Department, of employing one girl 10J hours, another 9| hours, and another 9 hours (with the willing consent of the workers concerned and carrying enhanced pay) to meet the peculiar exigencies of the business. The Inspector told the Court that the employer has asked for an extension, of the ordinary hours at her factory. This the Inspector declined to sanction. While admitting the offence, counsel for defendant (Mr F. J. Rolleston), made tlie following statement:

It was true that overtime was worked, as it was also quite true that the Statute provided for overtime; and obviously there were certain businesses where it was impossible to regulate hours adequately. Defendant was put in the position of either having to break the law or of ruining her business. There was no intention on the part of defendant to defy the law or the inspector on this occasion. The Factories Act provided for overtime being worked, and the award provided for the payment of overtime. It was to be inferred that if overtime was worked when necessary, it was paid for. In this case, not only were the employees paid for overtime in accordance with the award, but they were also granted the equivalent of the overtime worked in time ofl on the following working day, without any reduction in pay, as a further compensation for the work done. The employees did not complain. They were asked, and were perfectly willing to work the extra time, and also to profit by the additional payment. Defendant did more than she was required by law to do in making up their overtime.

If it can be sliown that counsel for defendant has good grounds for the considered conclusion which he put to the Court, that his client “was put in the position of either having to break the law or of ruining her business,” the policy of the Labour Department as revealed in the Inspector’s refusal to meet the peculiar needs of the business in which the offending pastrycook is engaged, calls for the most exhaustive investigation. As counsel for defendant pointed out, the Act provides for consent being given to work overtime, subject to clearly defined restrictions which guard against abuse of this provision. The Factory Act of 1921-22 contains the following:

21. (1) The prescribed working hours or times may from time to time be extended, but such extension shall not in the case of women and boys be—(I) More than three hours in any day; or (b) More than two consecutive days in any weejc; or (c) More than ninety hours in any year, except in any exceptional case arising, in the opinion of the Inspector, from any unforeseen circumstances, in which case he may grant a warrant as hereinafter provided to work extended hours after ninety hours in a year have been worked by any employee, but such additional extended hours shall not in the case of any employee exceed thirty in any year; or

(d) on any holiday or half-holiday. Obviously provisions are made for quite a lot of overtime, and it has been shown that the Labour Department was satisfied that working conditions are satisfactory, since a certificate of registration was issued, which implies that the Inspector examined the

factory and satisfied himself that it is suitable for the purpose for which it is used: indeed, the factory is thoroughly up-to-date, electric ovens having been installed to facilitate the work. It is interesting to . note, how-, ever, in view of the Inspector’s refusal to sanction the application of defendant, that the Act provides, that written application for a warrant to work overtime shall be made to the. Inspector by the occupier previous to the commencement of the proposed extension, specifying the. names of the women and boys to whom the extension is intended to apply, and the period of the extension. Subject, however, to the provisions of the Act governing, the working of overtime by women and boys (set ofit above); it seems to be obligatory on the inspector to grant the application unless he is of opinion that such extension would Be dangerous or hurtful to the health of. any of the persons named in the application. In other words it would appear that the Inspector has {tower under the Act to refuse to grant the warrant to work overtime, only on the grounds of such extension ' being dangerous or hurtful to health. It is surely not contended in these days when so much is being said about the virility of the race, that it would be dangerous or, hurtful to the health of young women (who were willing to work) to assist their employers by working for one day only, 60 minutes, 75

minutes, or 135 minutes in excess of the . ordinary day’s work, to meet an emergency. More than that, in order to safeguard the health of the young people, their employer generously granted her employees the equivalent of the overtime worked, in time off on the following day, without any deduction in pay, as a further compensation for the work done. The attitude of the Department calls for an immediate explanation. The suggestion that 9 hours, 9J hours, and even 10J hours’ work at baking cakes (to overcome an emergency) on one day, and time off the next day by way of compensation could be detrimental to the health of a normal young woman will be laughed to scorn by their married sisters who manage to retain their health and enjoy life although they have their homes to keep in trim and families to care for, and whose work is never done! If the Labour...Department desires to make business more difficult and undermine confidence in industrial undertakings it should pursue the policy as revealed in the prosecution under review, but we are quite certain that the people and Parliament of New Zealand, while demanding fair and reasonable conditions of employment in all industries, do not endorse the harassing restrictions being imposed upon employers and employees which are regarded as high-handed and oppressive by both parties involved.