HOURS DISPUTE.

Waikato Times, Volume 100, Issue 16828, 21 June 1926, Page 8

HOURS DISPUTE.

AFFECTS SYDNEY BRIDGE WORK. WILL GOVERNMENT PAY? There was an unusual development in connection with the operation of the 4 4-hour week principle (says the Sydney Daily Telegraph). Employees engaged on Ihe harbour bridge construction works under Federal awards, objecting to the fact that they were paid for 44 hours’ work instead of for 48 hours, sought action by the State Ministry. An official of llie organisation of which the workmen arc members approached the Minister for Works (Mr Flannery), who, however, was unable to consent to the representations without reference lo Cabinet.

In an explanatory statement the Minister said that the Act under which Hie contract was made with Dorman, Long and Co. set out that the increased cost of construction due to a rise in wages, or a reduction of hours, must be borne by the Government, provided this was affirmed by a competent authority. The “competent authority” for employees under Stale awards was the State Parliament, which passed the Forty-four Hour Act, but the “competent authority” governing Federal awards was the High Court. Where the State was the employer the 44-hour week was granted to all employees; in the case under review a private firm was llie employer. Mr Flannery added that the clause in the contract providing for a rise or fall in hours or wages was fairly general in contracts which were likely to extend over lengthy periods. The shorter week has also been applied by the Railway Commissioners to their employees, and the question lias now arisen whether the Government should not defray the cost of the new 44-hour week. Cabinet will also consider that matter at an early date.