FLAXWORKERS’ AWARD

Manawatu Herald, Volume LI, Issue 4439, 12 April 1930, Page 1

FLAXWORKERS’ AWARD

CLAIMS FOR PENALTY. TWO BREACHES ALLEGED. CUTTING OF~BLACKISEHRY Palmerston N., April 11. Seeking a penalty of £lO lor an alleged breach of the Wellington industrial district ilaxmill employees' award, Joseph Lowden (Inspector of Awards at Palmerston North) _ molt proceedings in the Arbitration Court, yesterday, before Air Justice Frazer, against Wliitanui, Lt<l., flaxiuillers, ol jMoutou. Complaint was made that defendants, being a party to the award, bad between January 1 and March 20, 1930, employed W. Watson, Al. Cassidy, W. Londrigan, J. MacEav, ami N. Richards as workers under the award to cut and clean blackberry growing in their flax swamp at Aloiitoa. It was alleged that they had been paid only Is 9d per hour instead of Is lOjjd per hour, the .minimum award rate prescribed by clause 4 (.c) for “workers not otherwise specified. The New Zealand Flaxmillers’ Association sought to be joined as a defendant to the actijn on the grounds of identity of interest, and on account of its written request and resolution to bo regarded as such a party. The application, however, was dismissed by His Honour.

William Wood and Co. Muknpai Flaxmilling Co., Makerua) were the defendants in another claim by the inspector for a penalty of £lO in respect of an. alleged breach of the Wellington industriifl district Ilaxmill employees’ award. It was alleged that defendants lnul employed J- Gilnior at lending a plough horse, planting flax and digging out weeds where flax was grown for milling purposes, paving him only Is 9it per hour instead of Is RRd per hour, the minimum award rate prescribed. Both actions wore taken together, Air Grant appearing for the defence in each case.

Air Lowden slated that it would he submitted that the work of cutting and clearing lire blackberry was not only connected with the flax industry, but was inseparable from it. The neglect of an employer to keep his swaiup clear of blackberry did not permit linn to place Workers outside the scope ( I the award. Percy Taylor Robinson, secretary ol the Flaxmill Workers’ Union, stated that the majority of the flax swamps were inspected with blackberry, and it was customary to pay cutters more per ton for flax obtained front such areas. The quantity of blackberry was a factor in fixing the rate of payment in every block. He considered that the award conditions should apply to cutting where blackberry was in the contract. The practice was to make up a contract to the minimum wage whero blackberry was encountered.

Replying to Air Grant, witness stated that blackberry cutting had been going on for four years, and before the present contract came into toree. The first complaint made regarding ah leged failure to pay mmiimim rates was about four months ago. Examined by Mr Grant m respect of the second case, witness stated that the employee concerned was weeding the flax plants in the nursery. He knew that some of the plants hail been put; in the swamps, although lie had not seen it done. Quite a lot of blackberry cutting had been done by casual labour, mostly (lax-workers, although some had been done by contract. Blackberry cutting did not require a knowledge of flax-cutting. Blackberry work could be done either separately from or together with flax-cutting. Francis Joseph Lucinsky, llaxcuttor, stated that in 1928 be was cutting blackberry and planting llax tor Wliitanui, Ltd. He was paid Is 10Jd pel hour for each operation without any; request on his part. He received 15s a day for several months. Examined by Air Grant, be denied that practically all the men cutting blackberry on Wliitanui received Is 9d an hour.

Samuel Anderson, president ol the Flaxcutters’ Union, .stated that the cutting of blackberry made tlic Ha\outter’s work easier, and the latter did not have to be paid such high rates in that case. CASK FOR DEFENCE. Mr Grant submitted that, so far as the second information against Wood and Co. was concerned, there was nothing to justify the allegation ol a breach of the award. It was contended that all the operations referred to in the cases were not necessarily work covered by the award. The nursery which had been mentioned was an OX' perimental plot. The planting bad been undertaken with the object, ol improving the Max industry, and was performed by unskilled labour. Blackberry cutting was work which came under tiie ordinary landowners’ ohliga tion. Lt simply meant if the alloga tion was upheld, that every man with a (lax area on his property, and who employed labour to eliminate blackberv, would place himself within reach of the provisions of the award. He suggested that iL was an extravagant claim to maintain that the workers concerned came within the scope ol the award. Frederick William Wilson, supervising director of Whitauui, Ltd., stated that it was considered blackberry cutting did not come into the llax industry in the sense ol the award.. No one engaged in such work had been paid over Is !)d a day lor three years, with the exception of Is per day extra to the timekeeper. The men liad always accepted the payment without demur, except for one instance in the last week. Casual labour was engaged from any source available for blackberry cutting. ~ Alfred Seifert, 11 director of the A. and L. Seifert’s Flaxdressing Coy., stated that he did not regard blackberry cutters as being engaged in the llax industry. Workers in experimental seedling plots were considered to be farm labourers. Replying to Mr Lowden, witness stated that on occasions additional rates had been paid to ilaxcutters where blackberryi was troublesome. Albert Bregnnn, swamp manager for tlie Mukapai Coy., stated .that an experimental flax plot was conducted at Makerua, and the employee concerned was engaged in the nursery at Is 9d an hour. Witness did not regard it as work being within the scope of the award. The worker concerned was under the supervision of the farm manager. He regarded blackberry cutters as farm workers and when 15s a day was paid, it was to secure the service of responsible employees. Mr Lowden claimed that the clause

under which the complainLs had been brought was specially designed to covev snoli matters as those with winch the court was concerned. Looking through the whole of the award, stated Mr Justice Frazer, its primary functions were to deal with tho cutting and milling of llax. The running of experimental plots seemed to have no more relation to the industry than the ploughing and sowing of land to the threshing and harvesting awards. Blackberry cutters wore not specifically mentioned and an award must always he read according to its apparent object—in this case relating to (lax cutters and millers. The court had come to the conclusion that the occupations which wore the basis of the claims made did mil come under the application of those “not otherwise specified.” Both claims were accordingly dismissed, with judgment against the Inspector of Awards.