A WAGES CASE

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19750, 17 March 1934, Page 18

A WAGES CASE

UNION’S CONTENTION APPEAL COURT DOES NOT UPHOLD IT. By Telegraph—Press Association WELLINGTON, March 16. The Court of Appeal to-day is considering a question stated for its opinicn by Mr Justice Fraser of the Court of Arbitration, concerning the minimum wage payable to dressmaking apprentices under the Factories Act 1921-22. In July, 1933, the Christchurch Dress and Mantlemakers’ Union sued J. Ballantyne and Co.. Ltd., for a penalty of £lO on the ground that defendants had paid apprentices 27/- per week, instead of 30 - per week, the minimum rate fixed by the award, and by the Factories Act 1921-22. Defendants claimed that they were entitled to deduct 10 per cent from the award rate of 30/- per week by virtue of the general order of the Arbitration Court of 1931, reducing all awards by 10 per cent.

The Magistrate. Mr E. D. Mosley, held that the general 10 per cent reduction did not apply to the minimum wages fixed by statutes, such as the Factories Act, and gave judgment in favour of the Union for 10/- and costs.

Ballantyne and Co. appealed against this decision on a point of law to the Court of Arbitration. The appeal w f as referred by that Court for the opinion of the Court of Appeal. Mr R. A. Young, and Mr H. J. Bishop appeared for the appellant, and Mr K. G. Archer for the respondent.

In opening the case for appellant. Mr Young stated that the question before the Court was one of considerable importance, as it directly concerned a very large number of factory workers in the Dominion. Since the passing of the Arbitration Court Amendment Act, 1932, few awards, which had expired, had been renewed, and both emoloyers and employees had had to refer to the provisions of the Factories Act for the minimum of wages payable in factories. In the present case the award rate was 15/- a week during the first six months, rising at the end of three years to £2 2 4 a week. The Factories Act provided a minimum of 10/- a week for the first year, with annual increments of 5/imtil the wage of 30/- a week was reached. The employee in the present case had been engaged under the terms of the award at the rate of 15 - a week.

Counsel contended that so long as the annual wage paid by the appellant and other factory owners was not lower than the minimum prescribed by the Factories Act. appellant was not required to increase the weekly wage by annual increments of 5 The respondent Union contended that whatever was the wage, at which a factory employee commenced work, the factory owner was required by statute to increase this wage every year by an amount of 5/- weekly until the wage of 30 - a week was reached.

Mr Archer stated that the practice for which the Union was striving in the present appeal had been observed by the Court of Arbitration over the whole of the last decade. The Court of Arbitration had always held that wages should be increased each year by definite annual increments being added to the wage at which the employee commenced work. He submitted legal argument to show that the Factories Act, 1921-22, supported this contention.

The Court did not call upon counsel for the appellant to reply, giving judgment for the appellant.

The Chief Justice stated that the Factories Act provided only the minimum rate of wages, and that under this rate the employees concerned would be entitled in their fourth year to 25/- a week. They were being paid in accordance with the award at the rate of 30 - a week, less the 10 per cent, reduction applying to all awards. As this amount was not less than the minimum provided by the Factories Act, the wage was liable to the 10 per cent, deduction claimed by the appellant.

The other members of the Court. Mr Justice Herdman, Mr Justice Blair and Mr Justice Kennedy, concurred in this decision.