BOOT OPERATIVES WORK SHORT TIME

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 180, 20 October 1927, Page 11

BOOT OPERATIVES WORK SHORT TIME

AWARD MISINTERPRETED

EMPLOYER FINED £lB The reserved judgment in the - aan in which the Department of Labour proceeded against G. A. Coles and Co.. Ltd., was given by Mr. E. C. Cutten. S.M., this morning. The department sued for £lB9 in respect of IS alleged breaches of the female boot operatives award. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for a nominal penalty of £ 1 on each charge. Mr. Cutten found that there was no provision in the award permitting workers to work part time. Clause 13 of the award states ilia ’ no deduction shall be made from tin wages of any assistant excepting f<>time lost through the worker’s illnes. or default. The defendant company came to > • conclusion that this clause would poi - mit them to work their employees >-u time if the workers agreed to stay away from work part of the time each week. The manager therefore informed the employees that work was slack, that full-time employment could not he found for the whole staff, and it would be necessary to reduce hands, unless, if they preferred, they would stay away from work part of the time each week. If that course were agreed to a deduction would be made from their wages for the time they stayed away. Eighteen of the workers agreed to this. Eleven of the operatives were under the age of 18 and the defendant firm admitted the actories Act. 1921. prohibits any such deduction. With regard to the other seven cases where the employees were over IS, the defendant contended that the staying away from work in accordance with the arrangement made, came within the exception of clause 13. “On general principles,” said Mr. Cutten, “I do not think a section of the award could be used to introduce into the award a term not there, even if the wording were more dearly favourable to the defendant’s contention than it is.” Coles, Ltd., had said to their staff: “We must either shorten the staff or you must work part-time by staving away, so that we can make deductions from your wages.” This could not be treated as a default on the part of the worker. “I shall take it that the employer committed these breaches in consequence of a misinterpretation of the award,” concluded Mr. Cutten.