WALKING TIME PAYMENT

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 115, 1 June 1937, Page 8

WALKING TIME PAYMENT

Men on Rivers Board Work CASE DISMISSED The employment of workers on tho river diversion works at Fernhill and the non-payment of the men for reasonable time to walk distances above two miles to the work was alleged by the Inspector of Factories, Mr E. A. Wood, in a case heard before Mr J. Miller, S.M., dn the Napier Magistrate's Court this morning against the Hawke's Bay Rivers Board. The inspector claimed a penalty of £10 because the board had made an agreement with the secretary of the union concerned to pay a sum each day in lieu of the walking time., the . inspector alleging that the union was not in agreement with th'is. The Magistrate decided that although a breach of the award had apparently been committed, the agreement had been made and carried out, and that the board had reeeived no notiee of the' resolutiou passed by the union vetoing the agreements The plaint was tlxerei'ox'e dxsmissed. Mr A. E. Wood prosecuted, and Mr H. B. Lusk appeared for the board. Mr Wood saxd that the board was a party to the Hawke's Bay Contractors and General Labourers' Award, and that the facts of the employment of the men dn question would be admitted. No witnesses would be called. At the Ngaruroro river diversion scheme at Fernhill, the workers from Napier and Hastings were approximately eight miles from their work, and thus came under the suburban section of the award. Jl'his ciause, , when operative stipuiated that workers more than two miles from such work, not classed as county work, should be paid for the time necessary to wallc to work, or should be paid for such work. The men wertT/paid on the basis of an agreement made by the board with the then secretary of the union, but this was not now accepted by the union. Mr Lusk said that the strict xnterpretation of the ciause would mean that the men, who were scattered all over the district, would have each to be given separate conveyance to the work or wbuld have to assemble at Napier or Hastings for conveyance to the work. By agreement it was decided to pay the men eightpence a day to help with the conveyance to the work, and all partxes had been satisfied. Mr Lusk submitted that this was a provxsxon for conveyance. "It seeins likely that this application to the Coart for a penalty seems a prelimiinary to some of the men at least usking for extra payment," concluded Mr Lusk. "The ainount for each of 35 men on the scheme from July to December last year might be consxderable." Mr Wood said that at a meeting of the union about a fortnxght after the agreement, a resolution was passed objeeting to the arrangement. A letter to the board two days after the meeting pointed out that Ihe allowance was inadequate, and that Ihe agreement had not been made by the union. Mr Lusk: The secretary says he can fmd no such letter on the file, and has no .recoliection of «it. "They xeported the nxatter to the Labour Department," continued Mr Wood. "1 am concerned about the positxon of the men. Must they now come along and make separate piaints for the money due to them? The union has no power to sign away in an agreement the money belonging to those individual men." The Magistrate said that if at appeared that the board entered into the agreement with the consent of the men, then ho woixld .regard the complaint as triviai and inflict no penalty. Mr Lusk: The first we knew about this was in December when the new award oame in. The men were quite satisfied and still are. It is not they who are makiiig the trouble. The Berich; 1 think that each man should come along arid fight his own claixn. Mr Wood; I should be sorry for your court, Sir! ' The Beneh: One would decide the lot. ' ' The board would be paying walking time for hours a day," continued the Bench. ' ' The work could not carry on. If I find that a reasonable agreement liad been entered into between the board and Ihe secretary representixig the union, then I should dismiss this plaint. It does not, however, deal with the claim for wages, but that can be thrashed out in a eivil action. "I am not going to decide upon the legality of the question, but I will hold that under the agreement tho action was excusable. The question of whether there was a breach of the award could be decided by a civil action brought by the workers." • The action was dismissed.