FLAXMILLERS’ AWARD.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 3848, 22 September 1928, Page 3

FLAXMILLERS’ AWARD.

ARBITRATION COURT DECISION The attention of the • Arbitration Court was recently occupied at Palmerston North in deciding the following questions of interpretation under the Wellington flaxmills employees’ award, dated June 28, 1927: (1) Can a youth (between the ages of 15 and 21 years) be employed under clause 5 at a weeklywage to do such work for which only a piecework rale of wages is fixed under clause 4 (f) of the award; or (2) is the employment of youths at the weekly wages provided in clause 5 restricted only to those operations for which a weekly or an hourly payment is prescribed by clause 4?

The Court answered the questions, raised by the Labour Department, as follows: — Question No. 1. —“The particular work, in respect of which the present question has arisen is automatic scutching. The award (clause 4 f) provides only for piecework rate being paid for this work. Time-rates are provided for a number of specified operations, of which automatic scutching is not one. There, is a general provision among the rates for time workers which reads: “Workers not otherwise specified, per hour.” It is suggested that this provision is sufficiently wide in its terms to cover workers employed at automatic scutching. Against this view, however, are three important considerations: (a) The rate of l/10|d per hour is the minimum rate for unskilled labour, whereas the award provides a higher time-rate for pressing, which is treated as part of the operation of scutching; (b) paddocking, for which a piecework rate is fixed, has also a timerate provided. This rate (1/IOJd per hour) is the same as is fixed for workers not otherwise specified, but nevertheless it is, specifically set out in the award; (c) where no time-rate is provided for any class of work, but a piecework rate is provided for that work, the general rule of interpretation is that the piecework' rate is the only rate. The Court is of the opinion that, as the award stands, automatic scutching can be performed only at piecework rates. It necessarily follows that, as adults may not be employed on that work at time-rates, youths may not be so, employed. “The question before the Court was purely a matter of interpretation. It appears, however, that automatic scutchers of Ithe tyfpe now in use at Miranui flaxmill were not in general use when the award was framed. If, as a matter of fact, the present type of machine is less likely to become obstructed than its predecessor, and accordingly requires less expert attention and can treat more fibre in an equivalent pei’iod of time, it is open to the parties to agree on special rates (either time-rates or piecework rates, or both) for the men operating it, and, in default of an agreement, to apply to the Court to fix a rate or rates. It is also competent for the parties to deal with the matter of separating the operation of pressing from that of automatic scutching, as has already been done in the case of hand scutching. They may also deal with the question of fixing a special rate for scutcher operations in cases where a worker is employed to stack the fibre in a position handy to the scutcher, or to assist the scutcher operators in other ways. It is open to the parties to suggest amendments that will be applicable generally, or, if necessary, applicable to the special circumstances of a particular mill or mills.”

The Court desires to draw the attention of parties to clause 22 of the award and also to the memorandum annexed. The former provides that the employers and the union may agree on the rates of pay to be provided in the case of new machinery or new processes of manufacture being introduced, and the latter reserves to the Court the power to amend any of the provisions of the award on the application of any party, provided that the leave of the Court is first obtained. The Court recommends the parties, in the first instance, to confer with a view to arriving at an aggreement, the provisions of which can be made retrospective, if desired. An application to the Court can be made later, if it becomes necessary.

Question No. 2. —The Court prefers to answer this question in a somewhat different form from that in which it is submitted. The Court is of the opinion that youths may be employed at weekly wage rates on any operations for which piecework rates are not exclusively provided.