Image TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage Tile
Image size: 7168x9728 Scale: 35% - PanoJS3
Page overview thumbnail

Article text

PUBLIC HOLIDAYS.
Cmfs DdbitiM.
Applied^ to by the Midland Railway Em
ployees' Union for an interpretation, the
State Arbitration Court yesterday laid
it -inwn that 'nublic liolidavn' mpant
those days mentioned in sub-sections (a)
and (b) of section 61 of the Public Ser
vice Act, which at present are 10 in
number. J.\
Mr. '? President Dwyier -said that the
award clause in question .stated that after
12 months' continuous' service all officers
should be entitled to ; annual paid leave,
of 12 days, arid public . holidays or days
in lieu thereof. It was admitted that
the crux of the matter was the defini
tion' of 'public holidays'— what was
meant by that loose and ambiguous ex
pression. 'Perusal of the records of the
Court showed that the phrase had al
ready been defined. . Moreover, ' it should
be noted that this definition. laid down
as long, ago as 1917, had never been ques
tioned. In 1917 the Shop Assistants'
Union approached the Court for a defini
tion of the same ? phrase. Owing to two
holidays falling ' in the ordinary course
of events on a Monday, the Government
had gazetted the previous Saturday as
the day on which one of them should
be observed.- in pursuance- of sub-section
(c) of section 64 of the Public Service
Act. This Act stated that the follow
ing should be public holidays through
out the service: New Year's Day. Good
Friday, Easter Eve. Eastes Monday,
Christmas Day, December 26, King's Birth
day, Foundation Day and Proclamation
Day. It had since been amended to add
Anzac Day. and substitute Labour Day for
Proclamation Day. - The original Act.
therefore, contained -nine specially named
days, and now it contained 10. Sub
clause (c) said that all days which the
Government might appoint, and which
should be notified in the Government
Gazette, should be public service holi
days. The question put to the Court
in the 1917 case was whether a holiday
proclaimed -under sub-section (c) should
be considered a public holiday. The Court
then, decided that those holidays should
be public holidays which - were declared
public service holidays by the Public Ser
vice Act, sub-sections , (a) and (b) of
section 64, these being nine in number. ,
It seemed to him, the President con
tinued, that the Court had clearly in
dicated what it would consider as in
cluded1 when the phrase -'public holi
days' appeared in an agreement or award,
and it would be foolish for the present
Court to meddle with that .definition. The
parties should know that where the phrase
was used it would be taken as intending
to refer to tho«e days ' specially mention
ed- in -sub-section (a) and (b1 of sec
tion 61 of the Public Service Act. These
at present -were 10 in number. If- parties
wanted any extension or modification it
was always open to them to express them-,
selves in the - documents they put be
fore the CQurt.' . !
Mr. W. 'Somervijle (employees' repre
sentative - on the Bench) said it- was true
that there was in existence a decision by
the Court that public holidays were those
named in ' the Public Service Act, but
he was not satisfied that the facts of
that case ' were such as to make it a
precedent they were bound to follow.
The Midland Railway .adopted the words
of an agreement which gave to railway
officers such holidays'' ..--as. were' public
holidays because they were proclaimed,
and as the days in dispute were pro
claimed, it follows that the.; company
should also pay them. The decision in
the- case quoted rests upon the provi
sion in the Act that holidays should be
taken on the following Monday, and not
withstanding the fact* that two holidays
were consequently crowded into- one. .the
Act was held to prevail. : The circum
stances here were different, and sub-section
(c) operated without restriction. ' .
Mr. O. L. Bloxsome (employers' repre
sentative) agreed with the President.
$