BREACHES OF AGREEMENT.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20491, 9 March 1932, Page 5

BREACHES OF AGREEMENT.

+ TRAMWAY UNION'S ACTION. PENALTIES INFLICTED ON BOARD. Reserved judgment was given by Mr H. A. Yojung, S.M., in tho Magistrate's Court yesterday in two cases in ivhieh the G'hristchureh Tramway Employees' Industrial Union of Workers claimed from the Christchurcli Tramway Board the sum of £lO as penalty for breaches of the industrial agreement entered into by the plaintiff: and the defendant 011 Juno 9th, 1931. The breach in the first case was alleged to consist in the failure of the Board to pay two men the minimum overtime rates for time worked in excess of 44 hours in one week. Clause lt» (e) of Part 11. of the agreement provided that when an employee is called upon to transfer from ordinary day shift- work to a night shift without having a break of not less than ten hours he shall be paid at overtime rates for the time worked before tho expiration of the ten hours. The two workers were paid overtime rates under this clause on September 3rd, but the Board refused to pay them overtime for the two hours worked in excess of the 44, contending that they could not expect to receive a two-way payment at such rates. Tho Magistrate said that tho intention of the agreement was that workers should be specially paid for work clone under such circumstances that interference with the -sual* time for sleep and meals might result, and that this payment was to be separate and distinct from overtime earned through work done in excess of the prescribed shift or weekly hours. In his opinion the workers in question should have been paid overtime at tho prescribed overtime rates for the two hours worked in excess of 44 in addition to the amount paid them under Clauso .13 (e). Judgment would be entered for the plaintiff and a penalty of £.l aud costs imposed against the Board. The second broach was alleged (0 consist in the appointment of a bus driver who was not a motorma:. or other employee of the Board. By Clause 11 of the agreement preference in appointments must be given to employees of the Board subject to seniority, capability, suitability, and record of the employee concerned, and subject further to the right of appeal conferred by the Tramways Amendment Act, 1910. The officers of the Board claimed that the bus driver was in addition an experienced motor mechanic and could more thoroughly and expeditiously effect running repairs to an omnibus. The union submitted that there were motormen in the service who were equally as capable to effect running repairs, and that for several years motormen alone were employed on the buses. The man who had been appointed was not the holder of an electric tram driver's* certificate. The Magistrate was of the opinion that the Board had committed a breach of tho agreement, and a penalty of £2 and costs would be imposed.