‘NO GIVE-AND-TAKE’

Waikato Times, Volume 122, Issue 20495, 11 May 1938, Page 9

‘NO GIVE-AND-TAKE’

OVERTIME DISPUTE DISMISSED AS TRIVIAL MAGISTRATE OUTSPOKEN “Although awards are supposed to be settled by conciliation or arbitration, there is often no conciliation about them,” said Mr S. L. Paterson, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court, to-day, when the Northern Industrial District Brewers’ and Bottlers’ Award was in dispute. “There is no give and take in these matters, apparently, and the awards are no sooner framed and made law than someone starts picking holes in them.” The unusual circumstance in which employees received iTiore overtime rates under a nominal breach of the award than they would had the award been observed, were revealed in the case. The litigation involved information laid by the Labour Department (Mr E. A. Wood) against C. L. Innes and Company, Limited, of Hamilton, Mr N. S. Johnson claiming a penalty for an alleged breach of the award in that the company failed to pay overtime rates to employees on Saturday mornings. Employed on Saturdays Mr Wood said the award provided for a 4 0-hour week from Monday to Friday inclusive. Any work on Saturday up to four hours had to be paid for at time-and-a-half rates. It was alleged that several workers were being employed at Innes’ brewery in the bottle department on Saturday morning and were not receiving overtime rates. It was admitted by Mr Wood, however, that the total hours of the men not in excess of 40 a week or, if they were, overtime was paid. Robert G. Chambers, inspector of factories, said be found from the wages book that the bottlers had worked 7£ hours on five days a week and 3J hours on Saturday. No overtime was shown for this Saturday work but an additional half hour was worked on Saturday morning for which overtime was paid. During the week several hours overtime’ were paid, said witness under cross-examination. It was open to the company to employ the men up to eight‘hours each day from Mondn;- to Friday but instead the men were paid overtime for working hours in excess of 7£ hours on the days from Monday to Friday, witness admitted that several of the • employees whose hours were disputed were being paid in excess of the award wages. Men Did Not Complain To the magistrate, witness said the conditions of work at the factory had been investigated as a result of a complaint from the secretary of the union. No complaint had been made bv any of the employees. “What is the use of stirring up trouble?” asked Mr Paterson. “The men would be worse off If, as a result of this action, they were placed back on award rates of pay.” Employees gave’ evidence in which It was stated that no overtime for the 3$ hours on Saturday was paid, but none worked over 40 hours. All were satisfied with their conditions. Not a Bottle Btore Mr Johnson said Innes’ factory was a brewery and not a bottle store and the men employed were brewers and were not then covered by the clause in the award which was in dispute and which Mr Johnson submitted concerned bottlers only. Mr Paterson observed that although the men were entitled to work 40hours from Monday to Friday they worked only 35 hours ordinary time and received 5 hours overtime if the extra work were done. The matter in dispute was the non-payment of 3£ hours on Saturday. It appeared to him that the men were being amply | paid for overtime. “There is nothing to argue except a • matter on which day the overtime is shown in the’ book,” he said, “It may ■ be a technical breach of the award, I don’t say that it is not, but I will '■ dismiss it as trivial.” ; _