DRIVERS’ WAGES

Waikato Times, Volume 126, Issue 21041, 17 February 1940, Page 9

DRIVERS’ WAGES

WORK ON GARDEN PLACE | I ALLEGED BREACH OF AWARD MINIMUM PAY AND OVERTIME I Arising from work connected with 1 the removal of Garden Place Ilill, | action was taken by the Labour Department (Mr E. A . Wood) against the Borough of Hamilton (Mr L. Alderton) for an alleged breach of the New Zealand Drivers’ (Loca’i Bodies’) Award and against Grinter Brothers and C. Grinter, Limited (Mr W. J. King) for alleged breaches of the New Zealand Motor and Horse Drivers’ Award (part 1), in the Magistrate’s Court, Hamilton, yesterday. Mr S. L. Paterson, S.M., presided. It was alleged that the three de- ; fendants had failed to pay drivers’ i minimum award wages and overtime . as provided in the awards. The I three cases were heard simultaneously. J Mr Wood said the awards provided j that where drivers worked outside i the set or “clock” hours they had to j be paid overtime in addition to the ; minimum weekly rate. The drivers { concerned were employed on shift work part of which was outside “clock” hours. Action was being taken against the defendants for failing to pay the minimum wage for the “clock” time worked and overtime as provided in the award. As the men were employed on a weekly basis any proportion of the weekly “clock” hours worked had to be paid for at the minimum wage Contentions For Defence On behalf of Grinter Brothers and C. Grinter, Limited. Mr King contended that there was nothing in the award which required an employer to pay an employee an amount representing wages for “clock” hours j which had not been worked, when a j worker had received the minimum I wage by reason of payment of wages ! for “clock” hours worked plus overtime rates paid. In effect, in the case of a worker who earned his minimum wage at overtime rates combined with 1 clock-hour rates and did not exceed 44 hours work during his week, the contract was not in breach of the award and worked no hardship ' either to employer or employee, j Paragraph 2of the award pro- | vided for maximum hours, clause 3 [ provided for minimum wages; the | former for the employer’s protection, ! the latter for the employee’s proteci tion. Any contract not in breach of these two provisions was not other- ■ wise in breach of the award. Clause 6 provided for payment based on overtime rates. Clause 5 provided for casuals. If the inspector’s contentions were correct, then the provisions of the award could easily be evaded by resort to casual work. This tended to show that the inspector’s contention was incorrect. Clarity of Definition Furthermore, clauses 2D and 8D relating to the carting of bread and to holiday pay respectively, contained special provision that overtime had to be paid “in addition to the ordinary weekly wage” and if the award were to bear the construction suggested by the inspector such words would have been included in the provision relating to overtime. Mr King quoted authorities to show that where the operation of an award produced a result which was grotesque, unreasonable or oppressive, the award should be framed in words which were clear, coercive and permitted no doubt as to the intention of the award. No such words existed in the case before the court, he said. In tracing the progress of changes made in the award from time to time he said his contention was reasonable and fair, as special rates of pay on the basis cl time and a naif or double time were provided to enable a worker to earn his minimum wage by a considerably less period of work than the maximum period. Mr Alderton endorsed Mr King’s argument, and contended that the Labour Department, by suggesting a minimum should be paid in addition to overtime rate, was asking the court to supplement the actual wording of the award. The department’s contention was oppressive and should be clearly stated in appropriate terms. He pointed out instances where the award governing borough employees differed slightly from the Motor and Horse Drivers’ Award and stated that the department’s construction could not be read into the terms of the award. Decision was reserved.