LOADING OF SHIP

Dominion, Volume 32, Issue 144, 14 March 1939, Page 3

LOADING OF SHIP

Question Of Work During

Tea Hour PORT GISBORNE CASE An appeal against a decision of Mr. J. H. Luxford, S.M., who found in favour of a gang of waterside workers who were charged with a breach of the waterside workers’ award, was heard by the Court of Arbitration yesterday, decision being reserved. Mr. G. G. G. Watson appeared for appellants, Gannaway and Co., stevedores, and Mr. It. Hardie Boys for respondents.

The magistrate's judgment set out that Gannaway and Co. sought to recover from W. Anderson and 11 other waterside workers £5 each for refjisIng to continue loading the Bort Gisborne at Wellington during the tea hour on January 13, 1938. About 3.4<) p.m the gang was ordered to work till JO p.m., and the men accepted the order. At 4.25 p.m. Captaiu Ballard and the gang foreman returned to the hatch, Captain Ballard calling out: “This gang works the tea hour. A member of the gang answered from below-: “No, I’m not working, ana several other members gave similar answers. The foremau theu said, “We don’t want to know who is not wording, but who is.” One of the gang Stepped forward and replied, "We re not working the tea hour.” The magistrate said that he was not satisfied that defendants, who bad already agreed to work between 6 p.m. and "10 p.m., must of necessity reasonably have regarded the words used as such au order. Captain Ballard's opening remarks were equally consistent with, an inquiry and an order, but the subsequent question by the foieman was consistent only with an inquiry as to the men who were willing to work during the tea hour. If workers were to be penalized for failing to worK overtime or during a meal hour when ordered so to do the employer had to prove that the order was given in unambiguous terms. In his opinion the claims must fail on two grounds: (1) The ambiguity of the order; (2) plaintiff was not entitled to order defendants to work during the tea hour because they had already agreed to work between 6 p.m. and 16 P.m.

Counsel’s Submissions.

Mr. "Watson said the issue was whether the men who had been told that they were required to work overtime till 10 p.m. could also be subsequently told that on the same day they would be required to work through the tea hour. It had to be understood that the meu had not been asked to work without a meal hour, but to postpone it from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. Clause 19 of the award provided that men could work during the tea hour if required to do so. He submitted that the words used by Captain Ballard supplied the necessary notice. Mr. Hardie Boys contended that nowhere in the award, except in clause 15, was there power to require men to work a meal hour and overtime, and clause 15 dealt only with, a ship that was "finishing,” which was the position in the present case. Clause 19 dealt only with working the meal hour, and nqt with working overtime. Clause 47 referred to working overtime and not working through the meal hour. He contended that an order given under clause 47 imposed an obligation on the men to work between 6 p.m. and 10 p.m., and there was also an obligation on the employers to employ them. How could an employer, therefore, alter an obligation three-quarters of an hour after it had been given?