PIECE WORK

Taranaki Central Press, Volume IV, Issue 460, 30 June 1937, Page 2

PIECE WORK

EFFECT OF FORTY HOUR WEEK Magistrate’s Decision In Test Case The Magistrate, Mr .1. R. Bartholomew, gave his reserved judgment today in a test case affecting every industry in New Zealand' in which piece work takes place. Judgment was for the employer and against the Labour Department. The Department proceeded against Ross and Glendinning, claiming that a piece worker had been insufliciently paid since the 40-hour week’s introduction in September I'ast year. The case affects the interpretation ol all awards in force at September, 1936, and still in force, in which provision is made for payment for piece work as distinct from ordinary rates. The case, taken at random as a test case, was that of a wool sorter. Mr Bartholomew said the awtatfd provided for a 45-hour week, with a wage for a wool sorter a-t an hourly rate of 2s Id, with a proviso: that such workers should not receive less than an amount specified. The Arbitration Court, by order, reduced

hours to 40 from September last, with a wage adjustment so that the ordinary weekly wages should not be reduced by reason of the hours reduction. The Labour Department submitted that it was the Legislature’s intent:on that piece work rates should be 4 5-50 of what they were, or an increase of 12J per cent. The section, however, related only to the ordinary rate of weekly wages, the Magistrate considered. It was difficult to see how this expression could apply to piece workers’ earnings, the difficulty being accentuated when considering the varying capabilities and l earning powers of a body of piece workers. Moreover, the section spoke of the rate and not the amount of weekly wages, which term was, inapplicable in the case of a piece worker. ' During the hearing, said Mr Bartholomew, he had endeavoured to -licit from the parties what was this worker’s ordinary rate of wages, without eliciting any solution. An -•v(;rage over the period could! be calculated but would vary from period to period, being different from ordinary weekly wages. The worker cited for this case had been earning considerably above the ordinary rate of weekly wages, being therefore outssde the protecting tfrm of the Legislature. Even if this construction of the Statute was incorrect there was an insuperable obstacle to the plaintiff’s case in that he could not prove what was the ordinary rate of weekly wages of the worker, which varied 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 the worker’s earnings over the period wers higher I han the average weekly wages, so that even assuming for a moment that the term “ordinary rate of weekly wages" was applicable it could not be said that the worker’s wages had been reduced. Jn his opinion there was no breach of the award. Judgment was given for the defendant.