NEW LABOUR LEGISLATION

Evening Star, Issue 22464, 8 October 1936, Page 11

NEW LABOUR LEGISLATION

EMPLOYERS’ DOUBTS RESOLVED Employers’ doubts about the application of many aspects of the new Labour legislation are still causing a great many inquiries to be made at the Christchurch office of the Labour Department (says .the ‘ Press ’). The officer in charge (Mr R. T. Bailey) yesterday mentioned some of the matters most constantly referred to him. Overtime in shops and offices seemed to be a common source of misunderstanding on the part of employers, said Mr Baley. Under the 1936 amendment of the Shops and Offices Act no employee was permitted! to work overtime without his employer first obtaining from an inspector of the department an overtime warrant in the form prescribed by the act. Permits were issued only for stock-taking and other special work, the intention be-* ing that ordinary work should be done in the normal shop or office hours. Many applications for warrants were made when the prescribed conditions did not apply, and had to be refused. COMPULSORY UNIONISM. . Many employers seemed not to be fully aware of their responsibilities and liabilities under the compulsory unionism clauses of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act, and others were quite unconcerned about them. Under the Act all persons working under an award l were required to become members of the appropriate industrial union of workers. It needed emphasising that the obligation now rested on the employer to see that his workers complied with this condition, and the employer was liable under the act to prosecution for employing non-union-ists. Although the legislation had been passed two months ago, the department was still receiving inquiries about the restoration of wages to the ,1931 level. Most of these were from undefined employers or employees, where no award existed, or where the appointment was made after 1931. The long delay made the restrospective payment of the increase amount to a considerable sum. Workers under awards had a right of action to recover such moneys up to 12 months, and where no award was in force that right existed for six years. APPRENTICESHIP ORDERS IN FORCE. It was a common mistake of employers to think that the various apprenticeship orders, defining the conditions of wages, hours, and so on under which apprentices might bo taken on in the different industries, wore cancelled daring the depression, said Mr Bailey, This assumption was entirely incorrect. The orders wore still in operation, and before youths were taken on in those industries application had to be made to the appropriate apprenticeship committee. The time of commencing the weekly half-day also produced some inquiries. Under the Act shop assistants were entitled to their weekly half-day, on whatever day it fell, from noon” For employees in restaurants and tea rooms the half-day had to begin at 1 p.m. Some employers were apparently not aware that the times had been altered from the former 1 p.m. f o r shop assistants and 2 p.m. for tho others.

Every leniency was being extended to employers in regard to the new laws, said Mr Bailey. This attitude, however, could not be expected to continue indefinitely, and those committing breaches of the law would render themselves liable to prosecution.