THE WORKING WEEK

Evening Post, Volume CXXV, Issue 23, 28 January 1938, Page 5

THE WORKING WEEK

SPREAD OF HOURS

ACTION AGAINST COMPANY

(By Telegraph—l'ress Association.)

DUNEDIN/ January 27.

The action of the Kaikorai Tramway Company, Dunedin, in spreading the prescribed 40-hour week over six days without payment ot overtime, was the subject of a case in the Magistrate's Court today, when the Department of Labour proceeded against the company on behalf of one of its own employees, /claiming the sum of £37 10s 4d for overtime pay covering a period of thirty-nine weeks. Mr. G. F. Grieve represented the Department and Mr. A. C. Stephens appeared for the defendant company.

Prior to the introduction of the 40----hour week, said Mr. Grieve, the men employed by the ■ defendant company were working forty-eight hours a week, six days of eight hours each. When the Court of Arbitration reduced working hours to forty it gave the right to employers to work their men on Saturdays without payment of overtime.

The defendant company took the view that it was entitled to spread the forty hours over six days, and consequently reduced the working time from Saturday to Monday inclusive .to six and two-thirds hours daily.

The company's right to do this was challenged by the union, and the matter was referred to the Court of Arbitration, which-in its judgment drew attention to the peculiar wording of the industrial agreement and stated that the forty hours must be worked in days of eight hours each, and-that the Court had no power to alter the daily .maximum of hours to spread the forty hours over six days in this particular case. Between the time of the ■introduction of the 40-hour week and the issue of the Court's1 Tilling in the matter in question thirty-nine weeks had elapsed.

The Department claimed on behalf of the worker that a week's pay should ,be given for the first live days worked and that further day's pay should be paid to him for the sixth day. Mr. Stephens mentioned that Mr. Justice Page had heard the case, but that it was Mr. Justice O'Regan who had given judgment, as he had been appointed to the vacancy after Mr. Justice Page's death. He submitted lengthy - legal argument in defence of the company's action.

The Magistrate reserved his decision,