HOLIDAYS AND WAGES.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 718, 18 January 1910, Page 6

HOLIDAYS AND WAGES.

IMPORTANT CASE, THE BOOTMAJONG INDUSTRY. (B v'TeleeraDh.—Prces- Asaociation.)':.' Christchurch, January 17. • . A. ..case Unit will probably affect the 'hole • of- tho bootmaking ■ industry throughout. New Zealind occupied. the =■Attention: of ■ Mr.; H. W. Bishop,'S.M., .at the Magistrate's Court The -Inspector, of; Aivarils (Mr. W. :H.'Haggar) claimed: :''.£2o from Messrs. Skeltan, Frostick and of 'i award.in failing to pay wages, to certain . JemaJo employees for Show Day. and .the ■•following Saturday.:,;.:'" . -Mr.■ Saggar said that there, were: cases," : Sn' : respoct ,to 21 girls, but only two had : teen , taken'for; the purposes of 'this cuse, :.-:"viis.,\.Elizabeth-Kilday, .-.who was: in 1 her ' fourth' year, : and';BeatriceSmith; in Jier ififth ,; : .Th'o;.^former received 205.-: per .;;weekythough'-,-/sh'^ .195., and tho latter received 235:- per. week ■'Inward had!beea"clos&L on Show Day and tho following Saturday, and a deduction had been made from •tho. girls' .wages. . Miss Kilday had re-, iceivc-d only '15s.- for. her-week's work, and ;(the AOtherrfymmg/jlady 17£} 2d..';'.Ho,:sub-; tali t teil ■ that ; under Vtli'e award, Hhey'.were' not apprentices,' their wages* '. jiaa- to-be:■computed 'wwHyi^a'nd-:hot;by. •the hour, aid they; should have received jfiill .wages for thewook..- , Ho. then re-." ierred : to. various clauses: in the: Act, in .j.4etail';tb:show, that J they; were entitled: to deceive r the,.full->amount; •.. ..v.. k- 'Mi.' -Frosticlc-. • the cafe" - was *;a ! .fveryumportant'one/aad-.-mjuld.no;,doubt .eventually': roach tho Arbitration. Court .Jit %was not. ; an ordinary case.of breach of {the : : ain^'\M ; 4tvwdmd/^^';"^yyrhole: :■ lofithe bootmakjng': trsidein-;N«rw';Z&land. about no doubt beicauso of the position lie occupied as pre.Siderit.'of.thc Boot. Manufacturers' Fedc?l»atiotfVof; Now 1 Zealand, ~ and.: it was not ionly on behalf of his firm, but on beihalf: of the. federation/ that - he-.' would Endeavour. 1 to show, that they: were acting -according to • tlioir rights .under - ithe- award now^before; tho Court. It was . Nqiiito. true ■ that Clause- Q . (referring to Itho operation of - certain- sections) had ■ (been brought ' bef oraY'lthe.-'; Arbitration. SConrt, and the Court had said it could pot alter: the: award.-'.There was; no evijdpnco„that -it was contrary to the. agre©fnjent .ofitho' parties. -.Mr.. Justice Sim sajd-thatutlus clause .was ;iK)w.in the toward,, and there it had got 'to :stay. •®veiy section:' was-entitled'to equal- conjjsideration'' in'-the • interpretation: put on' ■pi.-/ Clause Q stated- thai .-nothing in this [award' shall be' deemed-to release, an employer: from, payment - of; wageß< for- holi-. Pdays - under - the P. r ictoncs . Act. . Tiiat fijlearly :l.showod; ; thatthere' -were two uclasses /of persons;.under thro': award, -■ ap-: Bprentices-aiid others.. It-they, had .failed sto pay .apprentices:they .would .have com-: tmitted: a - breach .of ..the award. • Apprentices- had certain r. obligations to them,' -Wd they -had certain obligations to: ap- : (prenhcea- ' They had- a: right .' to dismiss. jan\employeo! at l twenty-four . hours'' noiticej'for':'girls had' recognised.!their -right : So,;; leave van'SemployerX; at pours'inotice.-v.They--had. established that tnglit to leave under Clause Q, and therefore, an employer had.a right to;dismisß. .Regarding einploycrs' -babihty: to'pay, tho■inspector -iad/said-that; wages, should- be : qxud weekly and not . computed: by tho fmour.': .: '-'Tliey .must' be", paid 5 fnH'; wages WeoklrfaiW' evorv ..but ,ha' failed to Well (Jm Cotrrt tlio whale of the section.: pn the event of maclnnery breaking downidednctmn :from iwages: could be made: for limo'not-worked. ,He contendcd that ifhad to pay. for the-holidays, men-; : thoned itmdor the Factories Act: they did ■. tnot have to pay ttosa .not:mentioned. j-There was no slackness of-..work- at: the: fitinvi .it was. alleged the breach .was comr L-miitted.-,'' fact, as , - knew, ■ .'lthere was plenty, of .work..!Ehe. days menKvtioned >were .holidays:ipore:, and simple. •Show, Day had always been observed as' .-)a. custmnary holiday. It was •on ■ account ■ .'jot,-'the ..employees thattho firm closed, feiid'the firm • had/no desire..to deprive • She giris of 'ttoir wages. • Hr. Frostick - pren produoed a Etatement to show that • pile employees had:had-to work: ovcrhme/i f tfor two. weeks prior to the holidays.'. ''fifirm had-' paid- their' employees.' overteno, I t mndi.it-cost.'.them; about JEI2 more -than I :\bfholidays -wf-.ro■ 'not.:' given; . :•: Overtime i ■: (was i worked 1 m order., to - allow employees | (to get off ' -h Ife.' 'Haggarrrsaid'.- that • twenty-four notice :■ was onJy's stipulated . when* rail'; el PP' o ! fe ® • dismissed-' for , raisbe-. ; ';,