HOLIDAY PAY

Waikato Times, Volume 106, Issue 22611, 16 May 1945, Page 7

HOLIDAY PAY

IMPORTANT JUDGMENT CARPENTER S CLAIM FAILS (By THcjrraph tssnrinllon) AUCKLAND, Tuesday An important written decision was given by Mr J. H. Lux lord, S.M., this morning, in the case of Mr A. R. Eyre, carpenter, in a claim from the Auckland Stevedoring Company, Limited, for 2s Id, which he alleged was the balance to him under the provisions of the Annual Holidays Act in respect of a period of 101 hours of hip-carpentering work. Although the amount in dispute was small, the point at issue affects a large section of workers throughout the Dominion. The magistrate said the plaintiff was a worker who came under a section of the Act relating to “those whose term of employment has been less than .-three weeks.” This class of worker was entitled to have affixed to his holiday card uncancelled stamps of an amount equivalent to one twenty-fifth of the ordinary pay for the time worked by him during his period of employment. The defendant contended that the plaintiff was not entitled in any one week to more than one twenty-fifth of the amount he could have earned at the ordinary rate during the normal weekly number of hours. Accordingly, the plaintiff was paid in stamps one twenty-fifth of £6 15s Bd, being 44 hours at 3s Id for the first week, and one twenty-fifth of £6 3s 4d, being 40 hours at 3s Id for the second week. A worker in his group, how.ever, was not given the privilege of receiving any benefit in respect of the hours actually worked by him. Reasonable Provision That was a reasonable provision, continued the magistrate, as otherwise he would be entitled to one twenty-fifth of a normal week’s wages for any period of employment less than a week. It had to be remembered that the act not only conferred a benefit on the worker but imposed an obligation on the employer, and the legislature had been careful to prescribe a definite limit to that obligation by using the words “ordinary pay” in a specially defined sense or meaning. Keeping this in mind, it was impossible to find any good or logical reason for increasing the obligation of the employer in respect of a worker in plaintiff’s group. Mr Luxford held the plaintiff had been fully paid the whole pay due to him by defendant and judgment was therefore given for the defendant.