METAL TRADES AWARD

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 202, 24 May 1944, Page 5

METAL TRADES AWARD

Hours Clause Held Void

A clause in the New Zealand Metal Trades Employees’ Award by which the hours of .work for employees engaged on ship repair work are fixed at 44 a week was declared void by Mr. J. H. Luxford, S.M., in a recent judgment delivered in Auckland which has Dominion-wide significance. The decision was contained in an interim judgment read in connexion with a claim by Clarence James Glover, turner, for payment to him by his employers, the United Repairing Company, Limited, ship repairers, of £B6/18/6. The sum was the amount by which plaintiff claimed that*bvertime due to him for working 44 hours instead of 40 a week between November 15, 1037, and November 13, 1943, exceeded the money he had received.

“This case involves an interesting question of industrial law and the right of this Court to inquire into the validity of orders and awards of the Court of Arbitration,” the magistrate said. “Material changes were made in the industrial laws of this country by the passing of the Factories’ Amendment Act, 1936. One was the introduction of the 40-hour week and another was that all awards and industrial agreements under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. 1025, should be read subject to the Factories Act. “The 40-hour week was made applicable to all factories, but power was given to the Court of Arbitration to extend the weekly hours in certain cases. It was stated that ‘no order shall extend the number of hours (excluding meal-times) to more than 44 in any one week.’ ” Under a general order on September 1. 1936, Mr. Luxford continued, the Court of Arbitration authorized various occupiers of factories, including the defendant company, to extend hours to 44 a week for oue year. A similar extension was granted a year later. The applications had never been settled by the Court, but were purported to have been settled bj- Clause 25 of the award.

Arbitration Court’s Power. Quoting an earlier judgment, Mr. Luxford said that, the power of the Court, of ArbitraEiou to extend ordinary working hours was exercisable only on an application being made by the occupier of a factory and on the Court being satisfied that it would be impracticable to carry ou efficiently the work of the factory without extension. “The defendant company mode an application for extension in 19'37, and the Court of Arbitration made an order on August Sil ,1937,” the magistrate continued. “That order must be held void and to no effect, because on its face appears the fact that the Court has not considered the matters upon, which it has to be satisfied before granting the extension. The ot'der does not purport to do more than to exteud the previous order for an indefinite period, which is something the Act never authorized the Court to do.’’ Discussing the validity of the award clause, Mr; Luxford said the provisions of the Act necessary to give the Court jurisdiction had not. be,cn complied with. The effect of the clause was to give occupiers of factories who subsequently became parties to the award the right automatically to extend ordinary working hours to 44 a week. However, according to the Factories Act, no award could alter any right or obligation given, or imposed b.y the Act. unless authorized by the Act.

“In my opinion, the effect is nothing more than an attempt to abrogate the 40-hour week in respect of industries to which it applies,” the magistrate cluded. “Tlic Court of Arbitration had no power to do that. ’.Dm whole award is the judgment of the Court, and as .1 hold that. Clause 2" is null end void, the plaintiff is entitled to succeed.” Final judgment and the fixing of the amount due to plaint iff were deferred.