THE FLAXMILLERS’ AWARD.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 980, 18 April 1911, Page 3

THE FLAXMILLERS’ AWARD.

IS SATURDAY AFTERNOON WORK PROHIBITED? ARBITRATION COURT SAYS YES. At the recent sitting of the Arbitration Court at Palmerston North, the Mauawatu Flaxmills Employees Industrial Union of Workers, appealed against the decision of Mr A. D. Thomson, S.M., given at Foxton in November last, In the case brought against C. Lennox for employing trammers and cutters (pieceworkers) on Saturday, September 10th, 19x0, after 1 p.m. The Magistrate decided against the Union. In the appeal case Lennox was representated by Mr H. R. Cooper, and Mr R. Moore appeared for the Union. After hearing argument the Court reserved its decision. The decision was given on the 4th instaut and is as follows:

This is an appeal from the decision of the Magistrate’s Court at Palmerston North, in an action brought by the appellant to recover a penalty for an alleged breach by the respondent of the Manawatu Flaxmills Employees’ Award (Book of Awards, Vol. XI p. 23). The alleged breach consisted in employing certain pieceworkers at the work of flaxcutting and tramming after x p.m. on Saturday, the 10th of September, 1910. The first question to be determined is whether the respondent is bound by the Award. He is not named as a party thereto, but after the award was made he entered into a contract; with Messrs Coley and Bock, who are flaxmillers at Foxton, and parties to the award, to cut flax and deliver it at their flaxmill. The pieceworkers iu question in this case were engaged in the work of cutting and tramming some of the flax referred to iu this-contract. It seems clear that this was work coming within the scope of the award. If Messrs Coley and Bock had themselves bean doing the work by their own set van's the provisions of the Award would have applied to such work. The position is the same where the work is being done by a contractor. The flax was being cut for delivery at a flaxmill, to be there manufactured into fibre. The case is quite different from one where a landowner cuts flax on his own land,, but not in connection with any flaxmilliug operations. We agree with the view taken by the Magistrate (Mr Thomson) that where any person takes a contract to perform, at any rate, a substantial part of the work that is involved iu flaxmilling such as cutting and delivering the green fibre, or paddocking, or scutching, such person is connected with the industry of flaxmilliug. The result is that by virtue of sub-section 3 of section 90 of “The Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1908,’’ the respondent became bound as a party to the Award when he commenced to carry out his contract.

The next question to be determined is whether the provisions of the Award with regard to hours of work and overtime apply to pieceworkers. On this point the case is not distinguishable from two cases decided by this Court. The first case is The Poverty Bay Freezing Workers’ Industrial Union of Workers v. Nelson Bros. (Book of Awards Vol. VI. p. 238) decided in 1905, and the other is the case of 1 the Inspector of Awards v. The Christchurch Meat Co. (Book of Awards Vol. XI. p. 586) decided last year. The Award in the present case was intended clearly to apply to pieceworkers, for there are provisions dealing expressly with this class of workers. See, for example, clauses 13, 14, 15 and 16. The provisions with regard to hours and overtime are quite general in their terms, and, in accordance with the decisions just referred to, must be treated as applying to pieceworkers. Then comes the question whether the effects of subclause b of clause 1 of the Award is to prohibit work of every kind after 1 p.m. on Saturday. If the clause had stood alone it could properly be construed in the way suggested. But it does not stand alone, and the provision of sub-clause (b) must be read subject to the provisions of clause 2 just in the same way as the provisions of subclause (a) of clause 1 are to read subject thereto. The language of sub-clause (a) that the week's work shall not exceed 48 hours is quite emphatic as the language of sub-clause (b) that in any event work shall cease not later than 1 p.m. on Saturday. But it is clear that more than 48 hours may be worked in any week provided overtime is paid in accordance with clause 2. The same construction in our opinion must be put on sub-clause b and it must be treated as merely prohibiting any arrangement ot hours which involves work being done on Saturday afternoon without payment of overtime. So far as the Court has dealt with the matter as the Magistrate had to deal with it, viz., by taking the Award as it stands, and endeavouring to ascertain Irom the language used what was the intention of the Court. The provisions of the Award with regard to the hours of work were based, however, on the agreement of the parties. The members of the Court know that the parties intended to prohibit work on Saturday afternoon, but effect has not been given to this intention by the Award as framed. The Court has therefore made an order amending the Award so as to make it clear Ujat work is prohibited on Satur-

day afternoon, except where it is

rendered necessary to save property from destruction. The appeal must however be disposed of on the award as it stood originally. The result is that the decision of the Magistrate’s Court is upheld, but not on the ground taken by the Magistrate, and the appeal is dismissed, but without costs.

Dated this 4th day of April 1911, W. A. Sim, Judge.