PART-TIME WORK DEFINED

Chronicle (Levin), 11 December 1946, Page 4

PART-TIME WORK DEFINED

MAGISTRATE REVERSES EARLI^R DECTSION INTERESTING JUDGMENT A case under the Shop Assistants' Award cf considerable interest to many employers and employees was disposed of by Mr. A. M. Gouiding, S.M., at the recent monthly sithng of the Magistrate's . Court, Levin, when proceeaings for perialties brought by the Inspector of Factories against |K. Shaw, hardware merchant, of mevm, were ix.-any dismisS'ecl. A 1 Mr. N. M. Tnomson, who app-ear- | ed for K. Shaw, explained that1 the jproceedings wme originally brought some months ago by the inspeetor, jwho contended that Shaw should 'have paid an employee, Benfell, the full award wages as for a fortyjfouf 'hour w^ek, notwithstanding I chat Benfell had been employed by |arrangement purel>* as a part-time s hand. The mspector had main'tained that the award did not conitemplate pare time employment, iand that the employee was entitlecl - to be paid full wages no matter for thow short a time ne worked. The [case, counsel conanued, had been pr'eviously heard by Mr. Goulding iwhen the court iiad upheld the inspector's contmcion, and had imposed a penaliy. From that ;decision Mr. Shaw bad. appealed to' the Arbirration Court, and -Mr. Thomson inform.-d the court that ;at the Arbitrauon Court hearing he Ihad argued that the. true basis of ! Benfell 's employment was that of a ".casual, and that the appeal should, itherefore, be allowed. The Arbijtration Court had referred the matjt'er back to the Magistrate's Court ! for a rehearing, and the matter now 'came before uhe court again on ■ that basis. | The provisions of the award dealing with casuals, Mr. Thomjson stated, provided that a casual ihand was one who was employed ;for less than two consecutive weeks jat any one engagement. Benfell mad been employed continuously for isome three years, and admittedly :it was not easy to see at first sight |how he could not have been 'employed for two consecutive ; weeks. The true explanation lay, | however, in the meaning of the word "week." Mr. Thomson conbended that "week" meant the iordinary working week usually worked in the particular shop affected, that in Mr. Shaw's business the usual week was one of five and a-half days (since reduced '.to five days), and that as Benfell had never worked for more than •three da.ys in any week he had, in fffect, never worked even for one week. In support of this argument counsel quotod -a similar case decidea by the Arbitration Court in i 1943, where a female employed by iTurners and Growers, Ltd., at Auckland, had been held a casual, 'although she had worked for nine ■consecutive months, but in each |week she had worked less than the ; usual number of hours worked in the particular industry concerned. It was in this case, counsel con!tinued, that the restricted meaning :.f the word "week" as an ordinary working week was firrnly established. j The Inspeetor of Factories ii'epeated the arguments previously used by him at the first hearing, that there could be no part-time employment in terms of the award, ; but the Magistrate, in giving judg'ment. in favour of Shaw, pointed out that casuals were elearly con- • templated by the award, and that if 'Benfell was in law a casual, tlien [that was a complete answer to tho : inspector's claim that there had been a breach of the award in nct paying Benfell the full weekly , wages. His Worship concluded uy stating that he accepted the arguments that "week" meant an ordinary working week of five or five and a-half days, that the Turners and Growers case was . /plearly in point; that Benfell had "'been co'rrectjy .classified and paid as a casual, and/that the claim by the inspeetor must be dismissed. The court was informed at the hearing that the employee, BenfeiJ, • was perf ectly satisfied with the arrangements that had long obtained between him and Mr. Shaw, and that the claim by the inspeetor for a penalty was not j brought a t his instance.