PIECE WORK RATES.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 179, 30 June 1937, Page 2

PIECE WORK RATES.

3IMPORTANT JUDGMENT. RESULT OF TEST CASE. Per Press Association. DUNEDIN, June 29. Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., gave a reserved judgment to-day in the test case affecting every industry in New Zealand in which piece work takes place. This is the case in which the Labour Department proceeded against Ross and Glendining, Ltd., claiming that a piece worker had been insufficiently paid since the 40-hour week was introduced in September of last year. This case affects tho interpretation of all awards in force in September, 1936, and still in force in which provision is made for the payment of piece work as distinct from ordinary rates. The case taken at random as a test was that of a wool sorter. Mr Bartholomew stated that the award provided a 45-liour week with a wage for a wool sorter at an hourly rato of 2s Id, with tho proviso that such workers should not receive less than the amount specified for time workers. The Arbitration Court, by an order, reduced tho hours to 40 from September last with a wage adjustment so that the ordinary weekly wages should not be reduced by reason of the hour reduction Tho Labour Department submitted that it was the legislature s intention that the piece work rates should be increased by 45-40 or 12a per cent. That section, however, related onlv to tlie ordinary rate of weekly wages. It was difficult to see how tins expression could apply to a piece worker’s earnings, the difficulty being accentuated when considering the varying capacities and earning powers of a body of piece workers. Moreover, tlie section spoke of the rate, not tho amount of weekly wages, which term was inapplicable in the case of a piece worker. During the hearing he had endeavoured to elicit from the parties what was this worker’s ordinary rate of wages. The average over a period could be calculated but would , vary from period to period, being quite different from an ordinary weekly wage. Tlie worker cited for this case had been earning considerably above the ordinary rato of weekly wages, being therefore outside tho protecting arm of tho legislature. Even if this construction of the statute was incorrect there was an insufferable obstacle to plaintiff’s case in that he could not prove what was the ordinary rate of weekly wages of a worker, which varies from week to week according to the varying times worked, the class of work and the worker’s diligence. Finally, the Magistrate quoted figures to show that a worker’s earnings over a period were higher than tho average weekly wages, so that, even assuming for the moment that the term “ordinary rate of weekly wages” was applicable, it could not he said that these workers’ wages had been reduced. In his opinion there was no breach of the award. Judgment was given for the defendant.