ARBITRATION COURT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 260, 30 July 1919, Page 7

ARBITRATION COURT

BOOT TRADE AWARD APPEAL BY LABOUR DEPARTMENT. . The Court of Arbitration yesterday heard an appeal' t'roni a decision given by Mr. \V. u. Kidded, S.M., upon a case brought by K. T. Bailey (Inspector of awaiiis, Wellington) against the Dominion Shoe Factory Company to recover ■£«) as penalty lor alleged breaches of the ftew Zealand boot trade award. The appellant was Mr. Bailey, whoso summons the -Magistrate had dismissed. Mr. Justice Stringer presided over tho Court, and with him were tho assessors, Mr. W. Scott and Mr. J. M'Cullough. The facts established at the hearing in the Lower Court were as follow :—On Tuesday, March 18, 1919, the gas eugiuo which drives the machinery at tho factory of the respondent firm became disabled through a mechanical breakdown, in consequence of which work at the factory ceased. After wasting somo time to see if the engine could bo mado to run, tho operatives wero informed that the factory could not resume till the afternoon. The operatives wero paid for the time they wero waiting at the factory to see if the ongine would start, but lost three hours' pay for the three hours not worked while the machinery was being repaired. On Thursday, March 20, 1919, the operatives worked a full day,and then at their own request worked three, hours extra (from 5.30 p.m. to 8.30 p.m.) in order to receive a full week's pay; and for such extra time they received only ordinary rates of pay. A similar course to this had been many times followed in previous years when a stoppage was caused by the breaking down of tho machinery. The plaintiff claimed that as the men concerned ceased work by the direction of the employer on March 18, thev should have received overtime rates of pay, that is, pay at the rate of time and a quarter. The defendant contended that the time lost was due to breakdown of machinery, and was not at the direction of the employer; and that therefore tho operatives oould lawfully make up the ordinary week of 45 hours at ordinary rates without committing a breach of tho award. Mr. Bailey argued in support of the appeal: Mr. A. W. Blair appeared* for the respondent company. Referring to the fact that the men had "at their own request" worked threo hours extra to receive a full week's pay, His Honour asked why. the Labour Department had not prosecuted tho men as well ns the employers. _ Mr. Bailey said ; that he was not able to answer the question. It was the Department that directed prosecutions. The Court found that the parties had adopted a reasonable interpretation of the award as.it stood—and the award did not operate in any way hardly uuon either the employers or the workers. The appeal was dismissed, with ss. costs against the Labour Department. "