PART TIME EMPLOYMENT

Chronicle (Levin), 14 May 1946, Page 4

PART TIME EMPLOYMENT

COURT CASE RAISES QUESTION -J ff ' OF LEGALITY zMm DECISION RESERVED iO!#1 An important- case which brought" ^ up the whole question of the legal-' ' ' ity or otherwise of ' part time employment of workers was dealt ' 'a; with in the Levin Magistrate's ' Cdurt by Mr. A. M. Goulding, S.M.;last week, when the Inspector of . Factories (Mr. R. Weir) proceeded . against K. Shaw, hardware merchant of L'fevih, for whom Mr. N. M. t Thqmson appeared. 5.r! Thfe facts as outlined by the *; J{ Ihspector of Factories showed that some twelve months aao W. W. t" • Behfell-, of Levin, had agreed , to work for Mr. Shaw as a.storeman for three days per week. The wage§ . "v' paid over ihe whole pferi'Od of the " employment had actually exceeded * thfe awafd latfes of pay calculated, on the basis of the actual time . . t)., worked, and had varied from £3 7s 6d per week to £3 12s. lld. Under r. thfe avrafd the wfefekly rates of. t', wages had, during the same period, ; : "v" varied from £5 lOfe to £6 IS 7d per *; wfe'fek, ahd the inspector claimed that Benfell -should have been paid. thfe fuil weekly wage, notwithstanding the fact that he had only worked threfe days per week and . " , that he had been paid the cor- , • • ffect hfoportion for those three days. The inspector maintained that part time empioymerit uhdfeh. Ihe a\vard was illfegal unless a fuil. -h-r week's wages was paid for the part, time worked, and he based this r. .. argument On the existen'ce in the... , award of a clause that all employ- .• , ment thereunder should be. weekly . *at. employment. • - •• . Mr. Benfell, in evidence, stated; • *('Ul ; , that the arfangement "With Mr.,t, . Shaw was for three days a week,- :-i , and he had been quite satisfied;-» AHe supplemented his earnings by O'art time work with other employ- , ers. Mr. Thomson, for Mr, Shaw, sub-^y|:|( mitted that the argument of the*5"' inspector would produce results that were nothing lesS thah gro-s tesque. He pointed out that if the inspector's contentions were sound,^ then a man who worked on one'J " day per week for five separate emplbyefs Would be ehtitled to five weeks' pay for every five days' worked, and that the framers of the award could hardly have intended such a result. The efiect of such a result would be, of course, to prohibit altogether part timfe employment, and he quoted a judgment of the late Sir John Sal- , I mond, who said "there must be Imany businesses in which a useful Iplace can be found for part time, ' employees, whose service ife a berife-' fit to themseives and an additioh to the industrial efficiency of the feomihunity." Mr. Thomson admit- ' t ted that the award made^ no .. express provision for part time employment, but he argued on the other hand that it contained no express prohibition. He pointed iout that the Arbitration Act itself-, | under which all awards were made, ; provided that awards must be clear and plain, and that what could not be done under them must be set out in express terins. On the question of weekly employmeiit, counsel said this simply meant employment "by the week" and not necessarily "for a week," and i had no efiect except to make a. week's notice necessary on either Side, and to require payment of the fuil agreed wage, notwithstanding that a holiday fell on one of the ■working days. After hearing legal argument and considering the authorities quoted by counsel, His WOrshio reserv'ed his decision, intimating that as this was a case of far-reaching impbrtance to the business cominuhity he would take time to consider the matter. • a