BREACH OF AWARD.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19862, 3 February 1920, Page 6

BREACH OF AWARD.

OVERTIME AND BONUS. OASES AGAINST SOCIETY OF ENGINEERS. Before Mr S. E. M’Carthy, S.M„, at the Magistrate's Court yesterday after* ii° on w. Slaughter’” (Inspector of Awards) proceeded against the Christeluiren branch of tho Amalgamated Society of Engineers for £IOO penalty, on the ground that between October 1, ■ J E I9 . anf > November 30, 1919, the society took proceedings with the intention of deleating clause 2 of the Canterbury engineers’ award by deciding to work no- overtime until the employers to take the bonus awarded by the Court into account when computin'*' the amount payable for overtime. ° - "’«a brought under section HO of the Industrial Conciliation and Arm (ration Act, which, states that if •niy employers or employees combine to deteat-the provisions of an award they shall bo liable for a penalty not exceeding £IOO. j •The Inspector of Awards also claimed I penalties of £IOO from tho United boilermakers’ industrial Union of Workers and from the .Christchurch Iron and Brass Moulders’ Union, on the gicund that .hey tried iu a similar manner to defeat the Canterbury boilermakers' award and the Canterbury iron and brass moulders’ award respectively. -Mr 15.I 5 . J. O’Uegan, of Wellington, appeared tor the,three unions. As the three cases were connected, it was agreed to take them together. The lacts were admitted, the points at issue being merely legal ones. Mr Slaughter said that the three awards in question were amended on September 8, 1919, provision being made for a war bonus. However, a special clause was added to each amendment to the effect that iu computing tho amount payable for overtime, any bonus awarded by the Court should not bo taken into suclf computation. Tins provision caused a considerable amount of friction and discontent. Tho men held .meetings to discuss the matter, and came to the conclusion that the provision in question operated unfairly to tho workers, A ballot was taken, and this showed an almost unanimous rote in favour of refusing to work overtime until the employers agreed to take the bonus into computation when reckoning overtime. The employers were told that the men had been instructed not to work overtime and tho men refused to work overtime. In many cases the employers concerned, having urgent orders, agreed to the demands of tho men under protest, and notified the respective unions of their reasons for complying with tho demands and of their intention to report the matter to the Labour Department. Air Slaughter submitted _ tho action of the three unions in' holding meetings and arriving at the decisions they did showed an intention to defeat tho provisions of the award, and was thus a breach of section 110. Some people seemed to consider it was the duty of the inspector to adjudicate iu cases such as this, but ho considered that the inspector’s duty was to go into tho facts of tho case and lav them before the Magistiate. It was then tho duty of the Magistrate to adjudicate on tho case. This was the first case of the kind tried in New Zealand, as it was only cf late years that workers had adopted tactics of this sort. Mr O'Rcga.t contended that the facts disclosed no offence under section 110 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The men had not combined •to defeat tho provisions of the awards. Before tho awards were amended it had become the practice of the employers to reckon, in any war bous when computing overtime pay. Therefore, tho effect of cho amendment was a reduction in tho men’s wages. In tho ballot taken on tlie matter 359 of tho engineers voted in favour of the proposal not to tuirk overtime and only three voted agiinsfc it. Tlie men were angry at the time, and they had not thought for a moment that they were committing a breach of section 110 or of any other swtion. Although tho Arbitration Court fixed minimum rates of pay, employers could pay as much more as they liked, and the men had thought the employers would continue to reckon iu tho bonus when paying for overtime. It was only to force the employers to do this, and not with any intention of defeating the provisions of the award, that the men refused to work overtime. It had been held that where there was no intention to detent the provisions of an award a broach of section 110 had not been committed. In any case, the storm had blown over now tho employers having agreed to reckon overtime as of old. Even if a breach had been committed, it was not a caso for the maximum penalty, but merely for a nominal one, Mr .Slaughter pointed out that although under most awards an employer could pay as much above tho minimum wage ns he chose, tho amendment to the three awards in question specially stated that the employer should not leexou in tho war bonus when computing overtime. Tlie .Magistrate reserved his decision.