FURNITURE TRADES AWARD.

Taihape Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3546, 6 August 1920, Page 6

FURNITURE TRADES AWARD.

W_HAT IS A “BASIC” VVAGE?"

'WI:LLI.\“GTO'N, Aug. 4

In the ';‘~.rbitl'atiorl Court to-day application for interpretation of the Wellington United Furniture Trades Award made in January last was submitted by, fine Inspector of Awa.-(1% (Mr ‘R. T. Bailey). Ihr quc/.'f‘sx‘. an. issue was what constituted. 22 "basic" wage, the minimum rate ‘mid down by the award or “E~.'.‘ual’y’ ratc-.= paid by employers under c;:nsu 2 of the award‘ It _was direcucd that OV81‘LlI1l(‘ for Work dgne Oéime m-"in;-a2';.' lu:r.r.<

for “commencing w3ri~: yr after ordinary hours for ceasing‘ xxocwzk should be paid on the basic wage as follows:“Time and a half for the first three hours, thereafter double time until the ordinary time for commencing Work next day, if worked continuous--1y.,” . ‘

Mr Bailey said the question as to‘ ‘the interpretation of the award had arisen as follows: A firm have several men receiving 2/0 an hour ordin-‘ ary time. When they work overtime} What rate of pay should they receive?” During the month of March several men Worked 24 hours overiime and were only paid at the rate of time and a quarter on the rate reoeived, viz., £5 10/ and ‘£6 per xveelc The employer contended that overtime should only be paid on 1/1013 an hour, the minimum rate for ordinary time fixed by the award. The men concerned. however, received 2/6 and 2/8; an hour ordinary time, and if the employers.’ contention was sound the men would only receive 2/92 an Hour for working overtime. Surely ‘that could never have been contemplated by the Court of Al-hitartion. The question to be determined was what construction should be placed on the-words “basic wage.”” Mr

Bailey maintained that in the case Icfun employee receiviiig 2/6 DEF hour that was his basic ‘.Va.€e. T1181‘?fore overtinle should be paid on 1; flat rate and not on a War bonus. “In Mr Bzliley’s upini n ::" l‘.:l~=i<- \v:l;,'o meant “ordinary” rate of pay received by the men. On behalf of the employers. Mr W. Grenfell argued that a. “basic” wage meant “minimum” wage_ When the matter was discussed before the Conciliation Council an understanding‘ was reached flux: at basic wage should be the. minimum rate of pay provided for under the award. Employees were offered time and a. quarter on the actual wages. or lime and a half on the basic wage and they ar:r:r:pt,ed the latter proposal. His Honour remarked t.h’at I'lo, pr/m at issue was highly impol'lH.nt and the Court would give written jul'l£fment on it.