“PREPOSTEROUS” OVERTIME CLAIMS

Evening Star, Issue 22456, 29 September 1936, Page 14

“PREPOSTEROUS” OVERTIME CLAIMS

IMPORTANT POINT IN TRANSPORT CASE ' [Pm United Press Association.] .AUCKLAND, September 28. “ This is one of the most preposterous claims ever brought before this court,” said Mr Alderton, who appeared for the North Shore Transport Company in an action brought in the Magistrate’s Court to-day by the inspector of awards (Mr Grieve). “ It means, if it is upheld, that a man may receive payment for overtime while ho is at the pictures or while he is asleep, and he is paid at overtime rates until ho finishes next day.” Mr Grieve said the case was brought as a test, a breach of the New Zealand passenger transport drivers’ award being alleged. Under the award men

worked a daily total of 10 hours, which could be worked within the span of 13 hours. If a worker was called back before the expiry of 24 hours he was entitled to overtime payment from the expiry of the span of 13 hours until he was finally booked off. The driver concerned commenced his shift at 4.15 p.m. on Thursday and worked seven and three-quarter hours. On Friday he started at 3.45 p.m. and ceased at 11.30 p.m. The 13-hour span had expired at 5.15 a.m. on Friday, and it was claimed that the driver was entitled to overtime from 5.15 a.m. until 11.30 p.m. on Friday. Mr Alderton _ submitted that the matter was of vital importance to the transport industry. The claim represented an attempt by a small body of workers deliberately to distort an addition made to the award to meet a position which was creating a certain amount of injustice to a section of the drivers. Men, on occasions, were requested _ to report back for duty for special jobs such as trips after the picture theatres had closed. They might have finished their ordinary daily span at 8 o’clock, and have to report for an hour’s work at 10.30.

It was admitted by the employers, continued Mr Alderton, that it was not fair that drivers should be required to sacrifice their whole evening merely for an hour’s work, even although it was paid for at overtime rates. It was agreed that drivers called back in such circumstances should be paid at overtime rates from the expiry of their daily span. The clause itself was quite clear, but its effect on the other provisions in the award was not sufficiently appreciated. The claims made in this instance were so preposterous and impudent that only a limited number of the employees had the temerity to advance them, and some of the claims originally made had been withdrawn by reason of their absurdity. When the matter was referred to the president of tho union ho said bluntly that “if i 'io employees had got the employers where they wanted them they could stay there.” The magistrate (Mr Wyvem Wilson) reserved his decision.