DAIRY FACTORIES

Wairarapa Times-Age, 11 May 1939, Page 3

DAIRY FACTORIES

RULING REGARDING EMPLOYEES’ HOURS & WAGES. INTERPRETATION OF AWARD. (By Telegraph-—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, This Day. A reserved opinion was given by Mr J. A. Gilmour, S.M., in the Industrial Magistrates’ Court, Wellington, yesterday on the application by the inspector of awards at Wellington for interpretation of the New Zealand dairy jfactory employees’ award of’December 22, 1937. The magistrate said that it appeared to be clear that the hours and wages prescribed were based on a week of six days only, and applied to all workers including those employed in factories in which two and not more than two workers were regularly employed, in respect of their employment on six days in any week. Special provision, however, was made to meet the exceptional case of work done on the seventh day, or “additional day” and i* was referred to in the award, by workers in factories in which not more than two workers were regularly employed. “It is clear then,” the magistrate said, “that if such a worker is employed only on six days in any week (the ordinary week generally contemplated by the award), his employment for that week is governed by the general visions of the award relating to hours and wages. If, however, he is called upon to work on the ‘additional day’ in any week, I think that his employment for the remainder of that week is governed by the special provisions of subclause (b) of clause 3. “In the view I take, the ‘additional day’ is a day of average length, specially permitted by clause 3 to be worked in addition to the minimum sixday week contemplated and provided for as to hours and wages, by the award, and in my opinion the limit of hours fixed by clause 2 does not apply in respect of a worker who is called upon to work on such day. “It is true that the present award contains no specific provision increasing the weekly hours of work of a worker who is called upon to work on seven days in any week, and to that extent it may be regarded as defective in that it fails to prescribe for such a worker a maximum number of hours that may be worked on the seven days without payment of overtime. A mem - orandum, however, makes it plain that the hours of work fixed by the order of 1936 for the busy season have not been departed from, and the' proper inference to draw from this is, I think, that the Court intended that the hours of the workers concerned should be increased beyond those set out in clause 2 to such an extent at any rate as would permit of an average day’s employment without payment of overtime.”