CASE ON APPEAL

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 214, 10 August 1937, Page 9

CASE ON APPEAL

DECISION OF MAGISTRATE. . . FACTORY tfEST CLAIM. An appeal from the reserved decision of Mr J. L. Stout, S.M7, under which was dismissed an information brought by the Department of Labour against the Manawatu Knitting Mills, Ltd., alleging that, during: the week ending January 15 they employed Violet King, a person with over three years’ factory experience, and failed to pay her not less than £2, the wage stipulated by the Statute, was heard in the Supreme Court yesterday by the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers. Mr H. It. Cooper, Crown Prosecutor, appeared for the department and Mr G. I. McGregor for Manawatu Knitting Mills, Ltd. The judgment of the Magistrate was as follows: “The defendant company is charged that it did employ a person with over three years’ factory employment during the week ended January 15, 1937, and did fail to pay the said person not less than £2 as payment tor the said employment, l It is claimed that a breach of Section’?32 of the Factories Act, 1921-22, as amended by Section 12 of the amending Act, 1936, has thereby been committed. The facts are not in dispute. Tho award wage of the employee was £2 5s a week, and she lost one day’s employment through no fault of her own, but on the instruction of her employer, on account of temporary slackness of work in her department and, ias a result, had 9s, representing one day’s wages, deducted from her weekly wage, bringing her wages for the week down to 365. It is claimed by the department that Section 32 makes it penal to reduce the weekly wage below £2. No authority has been quoted for this proposition, but it is contended that that is the meaning of the section. In my opinion, hoAveyer, the Avordilig of the section is against such a construction, for the concluding Avords of the sub-section (a) contemplate reductions, by limiting the reductions from the Avages of boys and women under 18 years of age, to time lost through tho worker’s illness or default, or on account of the temporary closing of the factory for cleaning or repairing the machinery. Now there is no other payment mentioned in the Act from AA-liich deductions can be made. I think, therefore, that all that Section 32 (a) does is to fix the minimum rate of pay for a full AA-eek’s Avork. This is a guide to employers or the Arbitration Court in fixing the AA-ages ill an industry, on the analogy of the basic Avage fixed by tho Arbitration Court under Section 3 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act, 1936. Tlie provision does not moan that a worker is entitled to the minimum AA-age irrespective of the Avork done bv such Avorker, but that the Avorker'is to bo paid, for Avork done, at not less than the rates fixed by the-sec-tion. This vieAV is supported by the provisions of Section 14 of the amending Act of 1936, providing for payment for certain holidays. The charge, therefore, in my opinion, must be dismissed. As this is in the nature of a test case, I allow £3 3s costs to the defendant. Counsel for each side presented their contentions* referring frequently to particular sections of the Act. Mr Cooper submitted that the Act referred to a Aveekly Avage, and His Honour remarked that the Magistrate s contention had been that the £2 was the wage for a week's work. Mr Cooper, among other arguments, suggested that a deduction could bo made provided the payment Avas not bcloAV tho minimum prescribed. Mr McGregor submitted that either the avliolg question Avas that deductions could be made or they could not. In other sections attention Avas drawn to circumstances in Avhich a reduction could not he made. Tho award provided for an hourly rate and the Act fixed only a minimum Aveekly rate, not a minimum Aveekly A\-age. In fixing the basic’ Avage the Arbitration Court had mado a memorandum that the minimum specified Avas tho rate for a full Aveck’s Avork. Tho basic Avago avas for all workers, not only factory workers, said Mr Cooper, in reply. A provision in the Act stated: “Such payment shall be made in full at not more than fortnightly intervals,” and again, “If the occupier makes default for more than seven clays in the full and prompt payment of any money payable by him as aforesaid he is liable to a fine. . . .” His Honour intimated that ho Avotlld reserve his decision, as the matter AA’as of some importance.