RESERVED DECISION

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 10, Issue 76, 22 January 1947, Page 5

RESERVED DECISION

■ CLAIM AGAINST PAPER MILLS AWARD BREACHES ALLEGED PLAINTIFF CLAIM UPHELD The following' is the reserved decision given by Mr E. L. Wal~~"'"ton, S.M., in the Whakatane Magistrate’s Court yesterday regarding a claim against the _ Whakatane Paper Mills Ltd., and Norman Pelvin, Inspector of Awards. The plaintiff claims from the defendant £2O as penalties for two breaches of the New Zealand Carpenters and Joiners’ Award dated the 28th day of June, 1945. Particulars of the breaches are as follows: a. The defendant employed on suburban work a carpenter at the Hourly award. rates and failed to pay him for time reasonably occupied by him in travelling to and from such work contrary to clause 10 (a) of the award; and b. The defendant employed on • suburban work a carpenter at the hourly award rates and failed to convey him to and from such work at the expense of the defendant in breach of clause 10 (a) of the award. At the hearing at Whakatane on the 3rd December, 1946, the plaintiff called one witness who said he lived in the Borough of Whakatane and was employed by the r defendaint as a carpenter at .its paper mills some four to five miles distant, that he travelled to and from work by bus, that he was employed by the hour, that the defendant manufactured cardboard and was not a builder or contractor, and that he had never been paid any fares. Under cross-examination he said his claim was based on suburban

work, that he worked at the shop

■of the defendant, always on an j hourly rate—that if the work was not suburban work he was not en-

titled, that all the carpenters at the defendant’s shop were on the hourly basis, and that he was entitled to two hours notice to terminate his engagement.

Mr Alderton of Counsel for the defendant did not call any evidence but accepted that of the witness for .the plaintiff. By agreement between the parties

■and with the consent of the Court -argument was submitted in writing. The question to be decided is whether the wort performed by carpenters in the defendant’s paper mills is “suburban work” when the carpenters are employed on an hourly basis. The clause 10 (a) of the Award •the definition of suburban work is in two parts—First—

“Suburban work” shall mean work (other than country work) performed elsewhere than at the shop of the employer and irrespective of where the engagement takes place: and secondly (vii) In the case of all persons, firms, companies, or local bodies whose operations come within the scope of clause 24 (b) of this award, the trade or business premises carried on by them shall be regarded as the shop of the employer for the purpose of the suburban work clause in respect only of carpenters permanently . employed under the provisions of clause 24 (b) of the award. The second part of the definition is badly phrased, but I think its meaning can be expressed as a proviso to the first part, as follows: Provided that in the case of per-

ons, firms, companies or local bodies

whose business is other than that of a builder and contractor the trade or business premises in which such

business is carried on shall be re-

garded as the shop only in respect of carpenters employed under the exemption of clause 24 (b) of the award.

If, as I think it is, that is the

meaning of clause 10 (a) of the award, then the defendant’s paper mills ate not “the shop of the employer” within the definition, and the defendant has committed both the breaches of award as set out in the statement of claim.

Judgment for the plaintiff for £4. At the conclusion of the reading of the decision, Mr Otley for the defendant Company, asked for se-

curity for appeal, which the Magis-

trate granted by raising the amount of judgment an additional lOgns (£ls 175.)