ALLEGED BREACH OF FLAXMILLERS’ AWARD.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 901, 6 October 1910, Page 3

ALLEGED BREACH OF FLAXMILLERS’ AWARD.

AN INTERESTING CASE,

CAN A FLAXMILL HAND WORK ON SATURDAY AFTERNOONS ?

JUDGMENT RESERVED

At the Magistrate’s Court, yesterday, before Mr A. D. Thomson, S.M., a case of considerable interest to everyone engaged in the flaxmilling industry was brought forward for argument. The case was brought by the Mauawatu Flaxmills Employees’ Industrial Union of Workers who claimed from Charles Lennox, a flaxcuttiug and tramming contractor, the sum of 1, as a penalty for an alleged breach of the Flaxmillers’ Award, inasmuch that be did, on Saturday, September 10th, 1910, after one p.m., work certain of his employees in their ordinary occupations, viz., flaxcutting and tramming, in contravention of clause 1, sub-clause B of the Manawatu Flaxmills Employees’ Award.

Mr R. H. Dalhousie, President of the Union, conducted the case on behalf of the Union, and Mr Cooper, of Palmerston North, appeared for the defendant. Mr Cooper admitted that the men in question did work on Saturday, September 10th, after x p.m., but said that the men were pieceworkers. He also said that Lennox has a flaxcutting and tramming contract from Messrs Coley and Bock to cut and deliver flax in bundles on the river bank at per ton. Mr Dalhousie admitted the men were piece-workers, and also accepted Mr Cooper’s other admissions. The position was, he said that the men in question ,vere cutting flax for Lennox, according to clause 13 of the Award, any employer who has any work done by contract shall stipulate that the contractor shall observe the provisions of the award so far as same shall be applicable to workers employed by the contractor. He had been informed by Messrs Coley and Bock that this stipulation had been made in their contract.

The Magistrate said he would hear the argument. Mr Dalhousie said that in view of the admission made by Mr Cooper be did not propose to call any evidence. Sub-section b of clause a of the award stipulated that in any event work shall cease not later than one p.m. on Saturday afternoon. His interpretation of that section was that absolutely no work could be done on Saturday afternoon, not even at overtime rates, for reason that it slated a time at which work should cease ; it did not provide hours of work, but the hours of cessation of work.

Mr Cooper submitted firstly that Lennox was not a party to the Award and was therefore not bound by it. He had taken a contract to cut and tram flax and was clearly not a flaxmiller, and the Award is between flaxmillers and workers. He argued that if

Lennox was to be bound by the Award it would be just as reasonable to say a leather tanner is a party to the Bootmakers’ Award or a flourtniller to the Bakers’ Award. Clause 13 certainly provides that a flaxmiller must stipulate that a contractor employing any worker shall observe the provisions of the Award, but the contractor not being named in the Award is not bound by it. Assumming that a contractor is so bound, Mr Cooper contended that sub-clause of clause 1 of the Award only provides for overtime rates and if the week of 48 hours was not finished by one o’clock on Saturday then overtime rates would have to be paid after that hour. If it were decided that no work could be done after one o’clock on Saturdays Mr Cooper contended it would inflict a great hardship on millers. At times of flood there might be hundreds of bundles of flax in the swamp and if the workers could not work on a Saturday allernoon it might mean that the floodwaters would wash that flax away. He did not think it was the intention of the Arbitration Court to absolutely block work on Saturday afternoons. If that was the intention why was provision made for working on Sundays. The Award provided for special payment lor work done on Sundays and he contended that showed that it was not the Court’s intention to prevent work on Saturday afternoons. He further contended that in any case, these men being pieceworkers, the hours of labour did not apply to them. They were paid by the ton and could work when they liked. He quoted a case, Auckland Slaughtermen’s Union v. J. W. Marks, in which the Arbitration Court had held that the clause in reference to hours of labour did not apply to pieceworkers. In any case he contended sub-clause b of clause 1 did not effect his client. It didn’t matter to anyone, with the exception of Coley and Bock whether Lennox obeys his contract or not. Possibly the Union had a case against Coley and Bock, but not agaiust Lenuox. Mr Dalhousie, in reply, submitted that the fact of Saturday afternoon not being specified in clause 3 together with the other holidays proved conclusively that it is synonymous with the weekly half-holiday of storekeepers. The decision quoted by Mr Cooper in reference to pieceworkers’ overtime was not the only one given b'y the Court. In the case, Poverty Bay Freezing Works Employees Union v. Nelson Bros., Limited, the Court held that the overtime clause applied to slaughtermen working on piecework as well as other employees. There was also a similar decision given in a case against the Gisborne Sheep Farmers Meat Company. Of course, Mr Dalhousie continued, he quite realised in regard to Mr Cooper’s argument iu reference to flood times, that working to the exact letter of the award would involve hardship on all concerned, but there was a remedy. Additional labour could be employed in order to get the flax away. The Union wanted a decision on the point iu question. The Labour Department did not feel disposed to take the case up so the Union had brought it forward. The Magistrate said that the Union was quite justified in getting the point settled. Mr Dalhousie, continuing, said that if Mr Cooper’s contention that a contractor who does not abide by the award is not liable, then, he asked, what was the award worth ?

At this point the contract between Coley and Bock and Lennox was put in. It contained a stipulation that the contract was subject to the provisions of the Flaxmillers Award. Mr Dalhousie, referring further to Mr Cooper’s argument in reference to necessary work on Saturday afternoon said that the argument would also apply to paddocking, but here again it could be got over by the employment of additional labour. The Magistrate said that it appeared to him that to say that absolutely no work was to be done on Saturday afternoon would be a very hard interpretation to put on the clause. Mr Dalhousie: “I agree with you, vour worship, but the fact remains that that is the reading of the clause.” In conclusion Mr Dalhousie held that a breach had been committed, and asked the Court for their ruling. They were only asking for a nominal fine as it was a ruling more than anything else that was wanted.

The Magistrate reserved his decision.