QUESTION OF WAGES.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20256, 16 March 1934, Page 7

QUESTION OF WAGES.

Court of Appeal Asked to Give Ruling. DRESSMAKING APPRENTICES. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, March 16. The Court of Appeal to-day is considering a question stated for its opinion by Mr Justice Frazer, of the Court of Arbitration, concerning the minimum wage payable to dressmaking ap. prentices under the Factories’ Act, 1921-1922. 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 27s per week instead of 30s per week, the minimum rate fixed by the award and by the Factories’ Act, 1921-1922. The defendants claimed that they were entitled to deduct 10 per cent from the award rate of 30s per week by virtue of the general order of the Arbitration Court in 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, also by Statutes such as the Factories Act, and gave judgment in favour of the union for 10s and costs. Ballantyne and Co. appealed against this decision on a point of law to the Court of Arbitration, and the appeal was referred by that Court for the opinion of the Court of Appeal. Counsel for the appellant are Messrs R. A. Young and IT. J. Bishop. For respondent Mr K. G. Archer appears. The proceedings, it is stated, were instituted at the instance of various large firms in Christchurch and elsewhere in New Zealand who have been paying their employees on the same basis as Ballantyne and Co. paid theirs. Important Point. In opening the case for the 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 the employers and employees had had to refer to the provisions of the Factories Act for the minimum rates of wages payable in factories. In the present case the award rate was 15s per w'eek during the first six months, rising at the end of three years to £2 2s 4d a week. The Factories Act provided a minimurq of 10s a week for the first year, with annual increments of 5s until a wage of 30s a week was reached. An employee in the present case had been engaged under the terms of the award at the rate of 15s 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, the appellant was not required to increase the weekly wage by annual increments of ss. The respondent union contended that whatever was the wage at which a fac- 1 tory empk>3-ee commenced work the factory owner was required by statute to increase this wage every year by an amount of os weekly until a wage of 30s per week was reached. Legal argument is proceeding.