ARBITRATION COURT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 233, 20 June 1918, Page 7

ARBITRATION COURT

J INTERPRETATION OF AN AWARD 0 J BAKERS' HOURS OF WORK 3 f In tlic Arbitration Court yesterday an application was made by tho'lnspector of Awards fur an interpretation of Iho bakers' and pastry cooks' award as it all'oct- . cd the bakers. [ On tlio Bench were His Honour Mr. i Justice Stringer, with him Mr. W. Scott - (employers' representative) and Mr. .r. i At'Ciillough (workers' representative). Mr. .Andrew Collins appeared for the Bakers' Union and Mr. W. A. W. Grenlell for I lie employers; Mr. G. 11. Light.- . foot, Inspector of Awards, was also present. In Clause 1 (o) of the award if was set mil; that:—'".['he hours of starling work for the bakers shall not be earlier tban i o'clock a.m., except on Satur- ' days, and the day immediately preceding it public holiday, )! a.m. In the event of a double holiday, 2 a.m. On Saturday, .Tune 1, 1!M8, certain employers started their workers at 2 a.m., rind did not pay overtime rates. Monday, June li (King's Birtlulaj') was a public holiday. The question was whether Sunday and Monday could bo considered a double holiday. Mr. Collins said that dome bakers treated tho Sunday preceding the King's Birthday as a holiday, and on Saturday started their employees at work at 2 a.m., as provided in the award for beginning work when a double holiday occurred. Some of the bakers paid overtime rates, others did not, while others, again, did not start work until 'i a.m. The union contended ilmt if the Court bad intendpd to regard Sunday as a holiday it would have so stated in the award. •Mr. Grenfell stated that it was necessary in this case to treat the Sunday as a holiday, and especially under present war conditions. Delivery by cart had been reduced by fully 75 per cent., and the bread ovas now mostly retailed by grocers. It was necessary to deliver the bread to those retailers as early as possible. Furthermore, it had teen the custom.of the trade for the past thirty years, when Saturday or Monday was a holiday, to treat Sunday as a holiday, lie quoted several instances where this had occurred even so recently us last year. On June i, 1017, a Monday, observed as King's Birthday, Sunday and .Monday wero treated as double holidays, and no claim was made by the union for overtime. There had been an absolute recognition of (lie practice by the union during the past thirty years. In support of this statement, Frederick George Tonks, master baker, gave evidence. After Mr. Collins had replied, the Court conferred for some time, and His .Honour remarked that it seemed perfectly clear that tho object of the provision was that when there were two consecutive days on which no work was to bo done tho employers should havo the right on the day preceding to start their workers two hours earlier without tho payment of overtime. It was obvious that this applied equally if one of the holidays was a Sunday. So far as reason was concerned, this should equally apply. The question was if tho award had not so used the word "Sunday" as to exclude it from the definition of holidays as referring to week days. Sunday, was a holiday in itself; it was the Holy Day—tho holiday par excellence, and the 'Court thought that Sunday counted as a holiday. Tho other days were week days, and it was only by specially designating them as holidays that they became such. If any ambiguity existed it was a wellrecognised canon of construction in all legal documents that where the parties had practically adopted a course of i»tion that was accepted by the Court. Tho decision of the Court-would be that Sunday for the purposes of the clause must be treated as one of the holidays.