EXTRA TIME WORKED

Waikato Times, Volume 128, Issue 21358, 28 February 1941, Page 6

EXTRA TIME WORKED

PROSECUTION OF FIRM ALLEGED BREACH OF AWARD a* •n WARTIME EFFORT PLEADED COURT DISMISSES CHARGE A case of considerable interest to employers and employees engaged in industries in wartime was heard at the Magistrate's Court, Hamilton, today by Mr W. H. Freeman, S.M., when the Northern Industrial Union of Workers (Mr W. R. Tuck) prosecuted A. M. Bisley and Company, Limited, produce merchants, farm machinery manufacturers, Hamilton (Mr A. L. Tompkins). The charge was that from August 5 to August 27, 1940, being an employer party to and bound by the award, the firm employed A. Collins, K. Kappely, W. McLeod and other persons, being workers coming within the scope of the award, for on each day from Monday to Friday inclusive in each week during the period, and failed ‘to pay them for the work done in excess of eight hours a day at the overtime rates prescribed by clause 5 of the award. The magistrate dismissed the charges on the ground that any breach was excusable. He undertook to give a written judgment and fixed security for appeal. Mr Tuck 'quoted the award provisions, and Mr Tompkins admitted that nine hours a day were worked, for which only standard rates were paid, though the award required time and a-half payment for the extra hour each day. Action By Union Clifford William Treweek, assistant secretary and organiser for the union, said in evidence that at a meeting of the executive on December 5, 1940, it was decided to take action against Bisieys for £lO in respect of each offence alleged by the prosecution. The decision was confirmed on January 7, 1941. His union knew last August that the war position was “pretty desperate,” and appeals for greater production were made by the Prime Minister and other representative leaders of the | Empire to win. j The magistrate said that if the appeals were to be answered in the way Bisieys and their staff had done all awards might as well be scrapped or suspended. Counsel produced posters urging increased effort, and contended that at the time the position was very desperate indeed. Union secretaries | might smile, but workers who were i patriotic regarded the situation seriously. The men themselves had asked to be allowed to work the extra time at standard rates of pay. Treweek said the union knew the facts about the men’s desire. It was concerned with the observance of the award. He would not say the union would prosecute for every breach of the award. He did not know of any prior action by the Labour Department, but no doubt executive members knew of the press reports on the subject at the time. The union’s solicitor, Mr Tuck, had written to Bisieys indicating that proceedings would be delayed for a week to enable the firm to rectify its offence. “Queer Position” j Mr Tompkins commented that it • would be a queer position if the union were justified in preventing men and employers from working longer hours as a war effort. The Labour Department had investigated the present case and decided not to take proceedings. He suggested that the alleged offence be dismissed as excusable under section 131 of the Statutes. Argument ensued at some length as to the interpretations of “excusable” in the present case. Mr Tompkins gave a brief outline of the prior negotiations. • The men were keen to help the war effort, he said. Farm implements were greatly needed from July to January, and the firm was willing to help. But there had been a big battery of red tape, until the project, after operating about three weeks, was abandoned. Mr Tuck mentioned that two firms in Auckland, sheet-metal workers, had been granted concessions to make such articles as milk cans, and these concessions had the support and concurrence of the Northern Industrial Union of Workers, who helped to get the concession through. The men worked 44 hours a week at standard rates of pay. Mr Tompkins expressed surprise, and added that it was surprising Bisieys and the men were not all prosecuted. All were equally parties to any breach committed. After some further argument the magistrate decided to dismiss the case under section 131 of the Industrial, Conciliation and Arbitration Act, holding that any breach had been excusable. At Mr Tuck’s request the magistrate undertook to give a written judgment, and to fix costs for appeal at £lO, remarking that every facility should be given to get an authoritative ruling.