RECKONING OVERTIME

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 110, 3 February 1920, Page 8

RECKONING OVERTIME

SHALL WAR BONUS BE IGNORED? \ . ; - UNIONS SAY " NO". Br TslofraDh.-Freßu A.«iodUllon. Christchurch, February 2. A point of considerable interest to employers and workers was involved in three cases which came before 'Mr,' S. E, M'C'arthy, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court tortlny, when the Inspector of Awards asked for a penalty of .£IOO each against the Christchurch' branch of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers,'the United Boilermakers' Union, and "he Christchurch Iron and Brass Moulders' Union. The cases were tho first of their'kind in the.Dominion. Tho inspector alleged that a breach of section 110 of the statute had occurred in that the members of the unions specified had combined to defeat the provisions "of that section of the Arbitrate Act by deciding to'.work 110 overtime until tho employers agreed to tiiko into account, when computing the amount payahlo for overtime, the war bonus awarded by the Arbitration. Court, in addition to the existing flat. rate. 'J ho inspector explained that the three awards referred to had been amended Ijy the 'Court in September last. Provision had been made for an hourly rote of pay and overtime, and tho amendments provided for a war bonus. Thertf was a spccial clause to each amendment, stating that in computing overtime the bonus should not be tnkcji into consideration. Members of the unions concernod were either not satisfied with the order of the Court or else they thought that tho Court did not intend what was nctually tho meaning of those clauses. Special meetings were hold to discuss tho matter, and it was 'decided that the .new order did not meet the workers fairly, tho.outcome being that a ballot was taken and an almost , unanimous vote cast in favour of refusing to work overtime until tho employers agreed to take tho bonus into consideration when computing overtime. The Employers''.Association was' notified of the decision, which was also advertised. 1 The employers having urgent orders to complete, agreed to the demands i nder protest, and notified tho unions, giving their reasons for compliance with the demands and advising that the matter would be reforrejl to the Labour Department. The inspector submitted that the action of the anions could reasonably be held to have been intended to defeat the overtime clauses of the award. For the defence, Mr. P. J. O'Regan said that the facts were admitted, but they disclosed no offence. The men were charged with tho serious offence of combining vto defeat the'provisions of award. As a matter of fact, before tho award was amended it had been tho practice of employers to compute overtime on the basis of the flat rate plus the overtime, and the effect of tho amendment had been to rcduce wages substantially. Naturally, the men had become angry, but in view".of what had been the practice of the employers previously, they had not thought that they would be violating the award by taking thoi stops they did take. On the other hand, they had thought thrft they v.ero quite justified in declining to work overtime. Thero had been no trace of their having combined to defeat the provisions of the award, and Mr. M'C'arthy himself in a .previ&us decision bad held that thero was no breach of the award if thero was no intention to defeat its provisions. As ft matter of fact, concluded counsel, tho storm had been over in an hour, as the employers had agreed to pay for overtime as before. Decision was reserved.