WAGES FOR COUNTRY WORK

Evening Star, Issue 23679, 12 September 1940, Page 8

WAGES FOR COUNTRY WORK

CLAIM AGAINST COMPANY

JUDGMENT FSR DEFENDANT

Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., delivered judgment this morning in the matter in which the inspector of awards (Mr W. H. Cadwaliader) proceeded against Dormer and Co. Ltd. for a penalty of £lO for an alleged breach of the builders, contractors, and general labourers’ award in failing to pay William Lyall Johnston overtime for country work. Mr E. J. Anderson appeared for tho defendant company. His Worship found that there had been no breach of the award and gave judgment for the defendants.

Tlie work, said His Worship in delivering judgment, was admittedly country work, and the relevant clause in the award provided that an employer might agree with any worker that, in respect of any country work, the hours of work should be other than those thereinbefore prescribed, provided, however, that all the time worked outside, qr in excess of such prescribed hours, should be considered overtime and be paid for at the rate of one penny per hour in addition to the ordinary rates. The prescribed hours were stated ns “ except where otherwise specified, the week’s work shall not exceed 40 hours; eight hours per days to be worked between 7.30 a.m. and 5 p.m. from Monday to Friday inclusive.” Johnston had stated, proceeded the magistrate, that on being instructed to proceed to the job he did so, but did not know the wages or conditions. His evidence, however, was very confused and contradictory, and he had admitted that some of his mates were working there and that he knew their wages. When his first wages sheet had been produced to him in court he had admitted that he knew that ordinary time was 2s 4d and overtime 2s sd, and stated that he was satisfied with the pay for outside work. The foreman had stated that when Johnston started work lie had been informed of the rates of pay. Shift work had been commenced in the tunnel in December last, said the magistrate, and tho rate paid was 2s 7d and 2s Bd. Johnston had spoken of a meeting which he thought had been held in February last, when some 20 men discussed the position and agreed to carry on at the pay for tho country clause. Johnston had said that he naturally fell in with the majority and carried on.

Evidence given for plaintiff had suggested that it was considered that a formal agreement with the men collectively was necessary to bring the clause into operation. The wording of the subclause, however, was perfectly clear and simple, said His Worship: that “ an employer may agree with any worker,” etc. A simple request by an employer acceded to by the worker with knowledge of the position was all that was necessary to constitute an agreement. Was such an agreement made in the present case? The final effect of Johnston’s evidence was that such an agreement was not disputed so far as the outside work was concerned. As regards tunnel work, added the magistrate, Johnston professed ignorance of the conditions, but he had also done so in the first instance as regards the outside work. On the other hand, the foreman had stated that he had explained the conditions and that Johnston regularly signed the pay sheets. In view of the foregoing, Johnston’s plea of ignorance could not be accepted. The worker having carried out the work under agreed conditions, said His Worship, the clause had been complied with, and there had been no breach of the award. Judgment would therefore bo for the defendant company.

An application for costs, on the ground that this was a test case and that the defendants had been put to considerable expense, was made by Mr Anderson. The application was declined. On the application of Mr Cadwallador, 14 days were allowed for the question of an appeal to be considered.