OFFICE OVERTIME

Dominion, Volume 36, Issue 35, 5 November 1942, Page 6

OFFICE OVERTIME

Higher Salaried Workers Entitled To Pay MAGISTRATE’S DECISION “This action raises a question of great general importance to the commercial and business community,” said Mr. Gouldmg, S.M., iu delivering judgment ni an action for overtime payment brought against a company by a former senior employee ef it. There has been doubt whether emplovees in offices who receive more than X 350 a year, being excluded from the provisions of the clerical workers’ award, are entitled to payment for overtime. In this ease the magistrate allowed, a claim for £155/4/2 overtime made by Alfred John Baiinevmtin ugainst the Associated Motorists Petrol Company, Ltd. The magistrate found from the evidence that plaintiff was accountant to the company, but was subject to the control of two'other men, the general manager. Mr. Bryan Todd, and the secretary. He (lid not have power to enrage or dismiss stuff, except in very junior positions, without reference to his seniors. From June, J'J39, to August, 1940, he kept a recurd of his own overtime by the same system ns the rest of the staff and was paid for it, week by week, till August, 1940. In August. 1940, the general manager apparently learned that members of the staff earning more than £350 a year were being paid overtime and asked plaintiff’s opinion on whether it should'be Jone. Plaintiff expressed the view that all executive officers in receipt of not less than £350 a year were not subject to the award, but office employees, whether executive officers or not, were entitled to overtime under the Shops and Offices Act, irrespective of salary. The general mnntlger instructed plaintiff that office workers receiving not less than £330 were not to be paid for overtime. Plaintiff continued to record the overtime he worked till November, 1940, by which time the record showed he was entitled to £67/12/9 under that . head. The general manager'then told him not to record his time but that if his work was satisfactory it bonus would be given to compensate him for overtime. Plaintiff obeved but continued to keep a note of overtime privately, which he said was for the purpose of seeing that the bonus he hoped to receive was commensurate with the overtime he had worked. Plaintiff left the company’s employ in June, 1941. The magistrate said it had been argued that the object of the Shops and Offices Act was to protect the rank and file in an office, and that those holding .what counsel referred to as executive positionswere outside the Act. He observed that nowhere in the Act was there definition of an executive or an executive position, and so it would be impossible for the Court to lay a line of demarkation for any particular office. Many examples would occur to almost anybody. The Court of Arbitration had seen fit to introduce in the Dominion clerical workers’ award a clause excluding from the provisions of the award persons holding executive positions and earning not less than £350 a year. Such persons were, however, within the Shops and Offices Act and their, right to overtime was governed by sections of that Act. The Act placed a duty on the company of keeping a time and wages book, as appeared to have been done in plaintiff s case before the general manager forbade it. He saw’ no reason to doubt plaintilt s private record of his overtime and therefore would give judgment for the amount he claimed and costs £l2. The Shops and Offices Act fixes the rate of overtime at time and a half. Mr. S. G. Stephenson appeared at the hearing for plaintiff and Mr. F. C. Spratt for defandant.