WATERSIDES? DISPUTES

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 343, 2 May 1928, Page 12

WATERSIDES? DISPUTES

ARBITRATION DECISIONS PAY AND TRAVELLING TIME WELLLNGTO.V. To-day. i Trie Arbitration Court lias decided a | number of ggEßesrians presented to it by the joint secretaries of tiie national | disputes committee set up under the • Waterside Workers' Award, dated | Question 1: As to whether the crane I gang which started work on the : AtiioLl at Wellington at 1 pm. on TueaI 'lay. October 11, lid 7. and ceased work | for the day at 4*3.0 p.m. and was ori dered back for Wednesday, S a.m.. . and worked until 4.30 p m on that day, | is entitled to be paid for six hours on i Tuesday. October XL. and until 3 p.m. •j on Wednesday, October Id. The S.ir?. j Athoil commenced discharging with ocher gangs on Monday. October Ic. The answer is that in the opinion of the court the men employed on the crane gang were entitled to a minimum o£ six hours' pay for the day. Question 1: At the finish of the leading the men were paid one hour at oil rates, the time taken to load the Q.l The answer is that no provision is made in the award for a special rate for waterside workers handling general cargo in which crude gIL is stored. Question 3: As to whether two men employed on the wharf at Miramar by C. Wadley at the S.S. Waipiata, and 'who, when the ship finished at 2.13 p.m. on Saturday, January 1, 1325, were discharged at that time, and paid up to 3 pm., this pay to include the travelling time as allowed by Clause 14 < b) of the award, are entitled to be paid the minimum provided by Clause 16 and the travelling time in addition. The court has an at least, two former occasions (book of awards, voL srtiv. p. llfij., and voL xsv. a..u. 236) held that the two hours' minimum payment includes pajement for travelling and the time actually occupied in travelling or a iived time allowance for the journey." "In my opinion this case is quite different from the Gisborne ca.se recorded in volume xxiv. p. 126.’' says Mr. A. h. Montieth. in dissenting from the opinion of a majority of the court on question 3. "T cannot agree that an allowance made to men for travelling outside ‘•their employment can. with any provision in the award, reduce the ordered—down minimum of two hours. ITo provision exists in this award to alter or reduce this ordered-down mLni- . m um, in any manner whatsoever.'’