A QUESTION OF PAY.

Taranaki Daily News, 3 February 1920, Page 5

A QUESTION OF PAY.

ALLEGED BREACH OF AWARD. AN IMPORTANT CASE. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Christchurch, Last Night. A point of considerable interest to both employers and workers was involved in three cases which came before Mr. S. E. McCarthy, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court, when the Inspector of Awards asked for a penalty of £IOO each against the Christchurch branch of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, the United Boilermakers' Union, and the Christchurch Iron and Brass Moulders' Union. The cases were the first 6f their kind in the Dominion.

The inspector alleged that a breach of section 110 of the Statute had occurred in that the members of the Unions specified had combined to defeat the provisions of that section of the Arbitration Act by deciding to work 110 overtime until the employers agreed to take into account, when computing the amount payable for overtime, the war bonus awarded by the Arbitration Court, in addition to the existing flat rate. ' The inspector explained that the three awards referred to had been amended by the Court in September last. Provision had been made for an hourly rate of pay and overtime, and the amendments provided for a war bonus, a special clause to each amendment stating that, in computing overtime, the bonus should not be taken into consideration. The members of the Unions concerned were either not satisfied with the order of the Court, or else they thought that the Court did not intend what was actually the meaning of those clauses.

Special meetings were held to discuss the matter, and it was decided that the new order did not meet the workers fairly, the outcome being that a ballot was taken and almost unanimously a vote was cast in favor of refusing to work overtime until the employers agreed to take the bonus into consideration when computing overtime. The Employers' Association Was notified of the decision, which was also advertised. The employers concerned, having urgent orders to complete, agreed to the demands under protest, and notified the Unions, giving their reasons for compliance with ■the demands, and advising that the matter would be referred to the Labor Department. The inspector submitted that the action of the Unions could reasonably be held to have 'been intended to defeat the overtime clauses of the awards.

For the defence, Mr. P. J. O'Regan said the facts were admitted, but they disclosed no offence. The men were charged with the serious offence of combining to defeat tile provisions of the award. As a matter of fact, before the award was amended it had been practical for employers to compute overtime on the basis of a flat rate, plus the overtime, and the effect of the amendment had been to reduce wagea substantially. Naturally the men had become angry, but in view of what had been practical of the employers previously, they had not thought, in taking the action they had taken, that they were violating the award. On the other hand they had thought they were quite justified in declining to work overtime. There had been no trace of their having combined to defeat the provisions of the award, and Mr. McCarthy himself, in a previous decision, had held that there was no breach of an award if there was not an intention to defeat its provisions. As a matter of fact, concluded counsel, the storm had been over in an hour, as the employers had agreed to pay for the overtime as before. Decision was reserved.