BREACH OF AWARD

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3020, 6 March 1917, Page 3

BREACH OF AWARD

WOMEN WORKERS COMPANY'S TECHNICAL ERROR Yesterday the Court of Arbitration heard a case in which the inspector of Awards (Mr. Lightfoot) sought to have Dimock and Co. penalised for breach of award. Mr. D. S. Smith, who appeared as counsel for Dimock and Co., admitted a technical breach, but claimed that it was excusable. Mr. Lightfoot said the award covering Dimock's bacon factory was one* in which no provision was made for women workers. Nevertheless, women had been employed, nnd had not been paid the award rate of Is. 2d. per hour. In a somewhat similar case, a Magistrate had inflicted a £10 fine, and ordered the employer to pay the arrears of wages. Mr. Smith said that some time ago the company had had a lard-patting machine brought under its notice, and it was a device to be worked by women. About this time the wife of an ex-employee appealed to the company for work, and they consented to engage her. Pending the arrival of the patting machine, she was given other work. Eventually, other women were engaged in lard-patting and canlabelling. Also 22 of the employees had enlisted, and the company was hard pressed to get its work out. The women were well paid, and to their own satisfaction. They were well treated. Afternoon tea was provided for then:, and a dining-room erected. Tho President of the Court (Mr. Justice Siiringer): Why didn't you apply for a supplementary award? _ Mr. Smith said that at about that time everything was' upset by a. reorganisation of affairs—an r.inalgaiuatiou of several compKvtks. There was no bother until the ifeoftsi Employees' Union caused trouLSo. When the company pas forced io mska a changa regarding the women, it had to put some into the office, and dismiss others. The men who vers taken on had to do the work the' Tvosnen were doing in addition to other vrcrk. William Hi Atkins, factory manager of the New Zealand Ifaraei's' Eacoa Co., formerly Dimock and Co.,- stated that before employing tho women he had discussed the question of wages with' them, and they bad all expressed satisfaction with the pay. His Honour: Did you look at your award before you engaged them? Atkina: Yes. We thought that as women wore not mentioned we were free to make the best arrangement possible. His Honour: 'The wording is "All other workers." Surely that is wide enough to include women 1 Mr. Lightfoot: You have- females in your employ still? 'Atkins: Yes. Mr. LighTJootr But they are all under 20 years? - I Atkins: Yes. Mr. Lightfoot: Then you put off all over 20 years? They were entitled to the higher rate? j Atkins: Yes. _ ' | Mr. Lightfoot said tho union did not wish him to press for a heavy penalty so long as tttd arrears of wages were paid. His Honour said that was not a reasonable request. The women had received a good wage, and the breach was a technical one. The Court was satisfied that there had been no wilful breach. The*wages paid to the women were as high, probably, as the Court would have awarded. It was not a case for tho ordering _ of the payment of arrears, but a nominal penalty (£1) would he inflicted.