HOLIDAY PAY

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24911, 26 June 1946, Page 3

HOLIDAY PAY

METHOD OF CALCULATION BAKER’S CASE BEFORE COURT OF APPEAL (P A ) WELLINGTON. June 25. The Court of Appeal to-day commenced hearing an appeal from the decision or the Auckland Supreme Court on the ques tion of holiday pay under the Annual Holidays Act. 19«. The appellant is James Raymond Moon, journeyman baker, and tlie respondent his employer, Bakeries. Ltd., of Newmarket. Auckland. The parties are agreed that Moons rights as to annual holidays are goveined by the Annual Holidays Act, and that under section 3 Moon was entitled to an annual holiday of two weeks on ordinary pay,” which expression was denned oy the act. so that Moon was entitled during his two weeks’ holiday to receive remuneration for "the normal weekly number of hours of work calculated at ordinary time rate of pay.” The appellant’s employment was governed bv the bakers’ and pastrycooks award, 1938, and the dispute arose as to what was "ordinary time rate pay under the award. The contention for the employer that in calculating holiday pay it should disregard not only overtime payments, out also extra payments of two shillings an hour for starting work before the prescribed hours, and that Moon’s ••ordinary pay” should be calculated by multiplying by 44 the hourly rate under the award for a journeyman baker working during the prescribed hours, after increasing the rate by the cost-of-living bonus. The worker contended that the proper method of calculation was to add up what the worker earned throughout the year: (1) for working during the prescribed hours without overtime; (2) for payment at two shillings an hour for starting early; (3) so much of the cost-of-living bonuses as were applicable to items (1) and (2); this total then to be averaged to ’get the weekly figure. The judgment of an Auckland magistrate in favour of the worker for £4 arrears of wages and costs was ehtered in September. 1945, but this decision was reversed by the Auckland Supreme Court on appeal, and the worker is now appealing against the Supreme Court judg-