HOURS OF DRIVERS

Waikato Times, Volume 125, Issue 20950, 1 November 1939, Page 11

HOURS OF DRIVERS

CONFLICTING DECISION 44-HOUR WEEK DECIDED Contradiction between the two Courts of Arbitration that existed last year is revealed in a decision issued yesterday by the Court of Arbitration over which Mr Justice O’Regan presides. The Court had had submitted to it by Mr W. R. McKean, S.M., the question of what number of hours is in operation by order of the Court or by order of the Legislature in respect of the employment of drivers attached to wool, grain, hide and manure stores. The question arose out of an action taken by the inspector of awards claiming a penalty against Dalgety and Company, Limited, for employing a driver more than 40 hours a week and failing to pay overtime. The Court, in deciding for a 44hour week, pointed out that the hours clause of the Canterbury wool, grain, hide and manure stores employees’ award was the same as that in operation elsewhere, and anyone reading it might well conclude that it prescribed a 40-hour week. It was not less clear, however, since the Second Court of Arbitration issued an order amending the Canterbury award that what was intended and what was in /act ordained by both awards was a 44-hour week. Principle Stands The amendment was made on October 28, 1938, but the original Court was unaware of it when the interpretation was pronounced on November 25, 1938. It was clear, nevertheless, that the conflict in no way impaired the principle indicated by the interpretation. The interpretation contemplated a regular working week of 40 hours, with additional hours worked only at occasional intervals. Since the amendment by the Second Court it was clear that the working week prescribed by the New Zealand motor and horse drivers’ award was really identical with that prescribed by the Northern Taranaki, Wellington, Marlborough, Nelson and Otago and Southland wool, grain, hide and manure stores employees’ award. “The Second Court,” concludes judgment, “having pronounced both awards, is clearly the better authority as to what was intended when framing them, and hence, in so far as the interpretation by this Court is in conflict with the provision drawn by that Court, the latter must prevail.”

In a dissenting opinion, the workers’ representative, Mr A. L. Monteith, stated the fact was that the award under considreation' had not been amended. Because the Canterbury award had been amended, that could not be held to be an amendment of this one, which clearly set out the ordinary hours at 40 a week.

Had the Court decided for a 40hour week a number of stock and -station agency firms throughout the Dominion would have been involved in the payment of considerable sums of overtime back pay.