Bricklayers’ Award.

Progress, Volume XV, Issue 3, 1 November 1919, Page 644

Bricklayers’ Award.

Interpretation of Suburban Clause in Christchurch.

The Court of Arbitration has given its interpretation of the bricklayers’ award,-on questions arising out of clause 8 thereof, dealing with suburban work.

The questions submitted to the Court by the Inspector of Awards were :

1. When an employer pays train or tram fares, are the workers to be paid for the time actually occupied in travelling outside the one-and-a-half miles radius from the Chief Post Office; or are they to be paid one hour’s pay for every three miles travelled?

2. Are workers entitled to be paid when returning from workl

3. Are employers bound to provide a conveyance, or pay the ordinary train or tram fares for the workers when returning from work? /

His Honour Mr. Justice Stringer states: —The suburban clause in the above award appears to have been agreed to by the parties when before the Conciliation Council, and was embodied in the award as recommended by the Council. The clause, however, is unusual and defective, and probably does not express the real intention of the parties; but construing the clause as it stands—which Ave arc bound to do —the answers to the questions submitted must be as follows:

1. The worker is entitled to be paid for all time occupied in travelling beyond the one mile and a half radius, and such time is to be computed at the rate of one hour’s pay for every three miles travelled. The rate of three miles per hour was, no doubt, intended to apply to cases where the worker walked to his work, but the. language of the award is clear that the worker is to be paid this time rate even when conveyed to the work, and by whatever means he is so conveyed.

2. There is no provision that workers shall be paid the above rate, or any rate, when returning from work, and they are, therefore, not entitled under the award to any payment for the return journey.

3. The employers are not bound to provide a conveyance, or pay the ordinary train or tram fares for the workers when returning from work, the award making no provision in this respect.

The parties have used language which has, in our opinion, been correctly interpreted by the Inspector of Awards in the last paragraph of his statement of facts.