ARBITRATION COURT

Evening Star, Issue 19782, 4 February 1928, Page 11

ARBITRATION COURT

IMTERPRETATSOH OF AWARDS The Arbitration Court —His Honor Mr Justice Frazer ‘ (president), Messrs A. L. Monteith .and W. Scott (assessors)—resumed sitting this morning. SHOP ASSISTANTS. The Inspector of Labor (Mr G. H. Lightfoot) asked for an interpretation of the shop assistants’ award. The clause of the award at issue read:—“Seniors shall not be required to commence work before 8.30 a.m. Am employer may require his employees to commence work at an earlier hour, provided that equivalent time off shall be given.” The questions asked of the court were:—(l) Are departmental managers deemed to be seniors for the purposes of the above clause? If not, are they seniors under clause 12 P (2) Can the payment of overtime, as provided m clause 19, be substantiated for time off? , . The statement of parts quoted in the application for interpretation was: —“ Arthur Barnett, Ltd., party to the award, has five departmental managers who take turns (weekly) to open the shop and supervise the sweeping and cleaning of the premises, and also attend to early customers (if any). No equivalent time off has been allowed, the weekly limit of forty-eight hours has not been exceeded, and no overtime Inn been paid. This custom has been operating in this and other lai'ge establishments for many years.” Mr Lightfoot said that considerable doubt existed, particularly in the large shops, as the clauses of the award seemed to be somewhat inconsistent, if not contradictory, especially in respect to departmental managers. It had been the custom for a long time for the departmental managers to take turns in coming in early to. superintend the oarly-morning operations. After hearing argument by Mr W. W. Bachelor (secretary of the union) and Mr A. S. Cookson (for the employers), the court reserved its decision.

The Inspector of Awards claimed £1 from the Drapery and General Importing Company of New Zealand, L.td. ior an alleged breach of the Retail Shop Assistants’ Award* quoted as follows; “The department being a party to the award did during the week ending November 5, 1927, employ one G. Fiddes as a packer, and one C. H. Young as a porter and did require them to start before 8.30 a.m. and did fail to give them equivalent time off at the end of the working day or days in the same week.”, ' . .. , Mr Lightfoot said that what was said in the previous, case applied in this case. It seemed to be a matter of custom. He was not laboring the claim for a penalty.; it was purely a matter of interpretation. Under the award there was considerable doubt on vhe point at issue, The defence of the D.1.C., submitted by Mr Cookson, was that the employment of storemen and-, packers before the hour of 8.30 a.m. did not constitute a breach of the award, and that it was competent for an employer to require workers of this class to commence at any hour that might ,be necessary provided payment at the prescribed rate of overtime was made for any time worked before 8.15 a.m. Although the interpretation clause .defined every person engaged in any capacity in connection with the reception, display, sale, or delivery of goods, etc., as a shop assistant, that definition was only for the purposes of the award as a, whole, and this clause must be read in conjunction with. others which made special provisions in respect o* the different classes of workers into which shop assistants were subdivided by clause 2. It_ was to be noted that in clause 2 seniors and juniors were described as assistants, but that term was not applitd to Storemen, packers, or porters, who were defined as workers performing certain specified duties. That there was a distinction between shop assistants, i.e.—those who were actually engaged in dealing with customers, and storemen, packers, and porters, was thought to be borne out by the fact that in prescribing the wages the court had grouped the former class under one heading and made a separate clause for the latter, who were not described therein as shop assistants, hut as storemen, packers, and porters. Another point which strengthened their contention that the word “seniors” in clause 9 (c) was intended to apply to shop assistants, as distinct from storemen, packers, and porters, was the reference in the last sentence to a particular class of shop assistants, viz.—those employed as ironmongery or hardware assistants. From a commonsense point of view it would appear obvious, from the very nature of the duties they were required to perform, that storemen, packers, and porters must attend at the hour at which the premises were opened, and be here at the closing hour also. If storemen, packers, and porters were to he treated as seniors for the purpose of clause 9 (c), then they must also be taken into account in computing the proportion of juniors to seniors under clause 12. Even though the wording of clause 12 (c) might be somewhat obscurethere could be no doubt that the limitation of 8.30 a.m. as the starting hour was intended to apply only to senior shop assistants.

Mr Lightfoot said he agreed with most of what Dir Cookson had said. The court reserved its decision.

The Inspector of Awards sought an interpretion of the; Tea Rooms 1 and Restaurant Employees’ Award. The clause of the award at issue was;—“ Employees who work on Boxing Day, New Year’s Day, Easter Monday, Sovereign’s Birthday, or Labor Day shall bo. paid time and a-half for such work. Time and a-half rates shall mean the proportionate daily wage and. board and lodging allowance ordinarily payable and included in the weekly wage, plus an additional amount equal to 50 per cent, of such proportionate daily wage and allowance. ’ The court was asked; Should time and a-half rates for work done on any of the specified holidays be calculated on wages ordinarily paid, or sohuld they be calculated on full pay, as defined in a clause of the award? The statement of facts was: “The members of the staff of the Savoy,. Ltd., Dunedin, who- were employed on Labor Day, received only time .and ahalf on ordinary pay; e.g.—a.waitress in receipt of -35 s a week received 2s lid extra for .working on Labor* jEhe

Savoy is a six-day establishment, and the employees arc provided with two meals each working day.” The court reserved its decision. Interpretation was sought in the ease of the award dealing with licensed hotel employees. The point at issue was: Can an employer require any worker in his employ to relieve during any week two or more higher-paid w'ofkers on the days of their weekly holidays at the same rate of wages "as is fixed, for the relieving workers’ department—that is, could an employer require a housemaid or a waitress or a relieving maid in receipt of £1 12s 6d a week to relieve the two members of a two-handed kitchen or three members of a threehanded kitchen on their respective weekly holidays? Or must he in the former instance treat her as a general hand and pay her £2 Is, and in the latter instance treat her as another worker in the kitchen and pay her £2 7s Cd. Tho court reserved its decision.