BREACH OF AWARD

Waikato Times, Volume 125, Issue 20953, 4 November 1939, Page 5

BREACH OF AWARD

WORDING MISUNDERSTOOD PAYMENT OF OVERTIME RATES NOMINAL PENALTY INFLICTED The wording of one clause in the New Zealand Carpenters and Joiners Award was made the subject of discussion in the Magistrate’s Court, Hamilton, to-day when, before Mr S. L. Paterson, S.M., a builder and six employees were charged by the Labour Department with failure to observe the terms of the award as far as overtime rates were concerned. E. A. Wood, inspector of an'ards, proceeded against Street and Street, Limited, builders and contractors, for £lO in respect of defendants’ failure to pay correct overtime to six employees. Arising 'out of the same case, the department also claimed £5 each from Henry Morris, Robert Lothian, Thomas Taylor, Alexander George Lye. William Henry Fensom and Frank William Hartley, the employees, on the ground that they failed to claim the correct overtime rat*. The case for all the defendants was conducted by Mr A. L. Tompkins, while Mr L. T. Bramwell appeared for the department. Mr Bramwell stated that the defendants had committed a breach of clause 4a of the New Zealand Carpenters and Joiners Award, which made provision for the payment of overtime. The men were employed on a job at the Te Kowhai Dairy Factory, about seven miles from Hamilton and were transported to and from the job. They often worked overtime on the job but were not paid the minimum rate specified in the award. R. Street, of the defendant firm, evidently classed the job as country work, whereas it was really suburban work.

Not to be Broken “These awards are not made to be broken, and if they are broken the offenders must be prepared to take the consequences,’’ said Mr Bramwell. “The work was eleven miles from Hamilton, and Street thought that clause 7g of the award applied,” said Mr Tompkins. “The clause opens: ‘Notwithstanding anything herein contained’ and goes on to say that on any specified country job the men may agree to work other than the specified hours at an overtime rate of one penny an hour. Street took it that the definition of country work was wiped out by the words ‘notwithstanding anything herein contained.’ He has committed a breach of the award, but only because he misunderstood the meaning of the clause, which might be clear to a lawyer but not to a layman. Street agreed with the men that, in order to get the job finished as soon as possible, overtime should be worked, and he paid them at the overtime rate of one penny an hour. They were quite satisfied with this. The breach covered only three weeks, and the average earnings of the men were about £7 7s a week. One of the men, who came on the job some time after it started was not satisfied that the overtime rate of one penny was correct and went to the union secretary, who visited the job. Extra Amount Paid. Street rang the Labour Department to see if he were correct, and when told that he was wrong he immediately paid the extra amounts which made a substantial sum, to the men. Had he known that he had to pay time and a-half and double time, according to the time worked, he would not have committed the breach. In any case, he was paying 3s an hour to the journeymen, instead of 2s 9d prescribed in the award. All this was done before the Labour Department came into the matter, except for a telephone message from Street himself. It was reasonable to expect that a layman might

misinterpret that part of the award, j and it was quite an excusable misi take. With the exception of the man who visited the union secretary, the men were unaware that they were committing a breach of the award. “I fail to see why they approached the union secretary before they saw the employer on the matter,” said Mr Bramwell. “They are not encouraged to go to their employer: in these matters,” said the magistrate. “Jt seems to have been a genuine mistake on the part of the employers and the men.” Judgment was given for a nominal penalty of 10s in each case.