SCOPE OF AWARDS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 576, 3 August 1909, Page 6

SCOPE OF AWARDS.

DO THEY. BIND LOCAL BODIES? ; • APPEAL COURT SAYS "YES." :',,Ari'" important' point in .'.tho' dispute between thoOtago Painters! Industrial Union of Employers ,and tlio Dunedin Painters' Iridilstriai Union of Workers, which was referred to the Court of Appeal,' was decided yesterday. ' "' "■' ' .The question submitted tothe Court asked: Is there jurisdiction to bind, a municipal .corporation or a.,harbour board .by ail award made , under the Industrial .Conciliation and Arbitration Acts?'.,. Tlie case' as stated for the. Court ..was Octobcr;29, 1907, the Arbitration Court made an award, in the dispute. On June .lp, 1909, 'the .il'aiiiters' IJiiion'made jin, application to:,have the Duncdin City' Corporation aud the Otago Harbour Board added.,is parties :to the award, under Section-.94 of.; th'e. Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration. !A.ct, 1908. It was contended on behalf of, .the Dunedin City Corporation- and the Harbour Board that there was ho jurisdiction to.,add, them' as parties, for tho reason that municipal corporations and harbour boards were not subicct to the provisions of the. Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Acts. His Honour Mr. Justice Sim roser'ved his decision. on the application, in order,to onr.ble a case to be stated for,the opinion of-,tho Court.of Appeal. ; Argument was beard on Jiily 22 by their Honours Justices Williams (Acting-Chief Justice), Donniston, Edwards, Cooper,' and. Chapman. Mr.. Weston, (instructed by tho New Zealand - Harbours'. Association) appeared for tho Otago Harbour Hoard, Mr. AV.'Ci MncGregor, of Dunedin, for the Dunedin City Corporation, and Mr. D. M. Findla.V'for tho Dominion Executive of the Trades and Labour Council. . The Acting-Chiof Justice" delivered, tho jjulgmont of tho majority of the Court (Justices jWilliams, Donniston,, Edwards, and Cbopor). ,llis, .Honour said that the prinoipal ,-Act was, tho Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, . 1905, i and there was ■an amendment Act of th'q.,same year, the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amend-ment-Aot, 1908.: If, tho principal. Act i.alonq wcrevlopkpd at, thoro .was nothing ;in it ,to oxclude,' either, dircotly or by ~inforenco,' - gr- harbour , boards from tne operation! of, tlio - Act. 'l'hey ..were both corporations, and .tho term, ."employer' was expressly' mado to include corporations. If the Act-was not to apply, it must be by reason of some, special provision - inj^.the Acts, which ,constituted •. these corporations.. ■ Section:'?,l; of ;tho Ariioncliilciit, Act provided that no award or industrial agreement, made after the', commencement of 'that Act, should affect'.tho'employment of any worker, employed otherwise than for, the , direct or indirect pecuniary gain ~6f the employer. This amendment effected a very important alicra'.fcion in the. principal Act, and, if it had stood alone- without the .proviso which, followed- it, the workers employed by' municipal corporations', or other local bodies,, with .the possible exception of workers employed on tnoney-earn-irig-industries suchas gasworks or. tramways, -would be excluded from the operation of tho Act. The proviso/ however, declared that the section shall not be. deemed to- exempt , any local' authority or',body- corporate, from the operation of any award or industrial agreement.-, .This proviso indicated a clear assumption Von .the part- of .the-Legislature t-hat local 'authorities and bodies corporate,-we're.subject to/the. jurisdiction of the Arbitration ,Court, under -the principal - Act, and an-"intention that, they' should: still- remain -.subject to. it, ■ and bo excluded from tho exemption, which wpuld otherwise attach to-.them b ( y 'virtue of Section 71. . ■ TJhat'. ,this '-assumption of . the Legislature, whethej', correct or .not, :was per-, fectly .natural,. was' : ..manifest, by. the.- fact' that the,' Arbitration, Court,'liafl all. along purr ported'to exercise its'jurisdiction over sych Jjodiqs.. The law - giving jurisdiction to :the Arbitration Court being as above stated,, it .would 'require the clearest -possible indjeation 'on tho 'part of the : Legislature in tho Act under which any particular corporation ;<was constituted,, to. exclude,, it. from ; . such , juris.diction.- It was .contended that.,- Section >70; of -Tlie [.Municipal Corporations .. Act, .1908, ,-aiid -.[Section j 3B of ,The, Harbours., Act, J;10.08,. 'iv.ere -.incqnsistentyWith,. the. jiidystrial 'Coh-' ciliatibn. .'and 1 ; Arbitration. Act-: applying . ,to; municipal Vcorporations or.[ .harbour ~ljoa'rds. .If cahn'ot"'be':contended, that' every'.niari 'was;' employed, toa' day's'; work'.;/,by; ~V municipal* co.rporiit'ion must!:..,,be..!V appointed and removed'.by,.a' resolution.-, of ,t}ie-.council., .The [was. satisfied!; ;at allevents, so 'far.:as, 'persons' emplpyed 'by municipal, corporation or a harbour board wero not "within. Sections 70 or. 38/tho corporation >and ■ the board and tlio. persons so employed wfere subject'to: the jurisdiction of''the. Arbitration Court., .As to persons properly, appointed under; Sections 70 and 38 'no doubt-, their, 'position'was different.' They held-a statutory office, and had no contractual relation; with .the : corporation, or .the board." • Tho power, ''however,'' oi .thecorporation.: or the' board to appoint, under Sections 7.0 and 83, was confined,.to the appointment of such persons 'whose.*remuneration would ' be -by ."salary,", nsing';:that. yvord in - the sense .in -which., it. \Vas ordinarily ' used.,. The,-. Sections[would iiot- extend'to authorise the corporation or' 'the board to appoint ' persons r whose re-' niuneration would ordinarily Come under the .denomination of '.'wages." In the ' opihioij of the. Court, tho answer to the question, 'submitted'.; -;'was ' ' that "the / Court"' of Arbitration'- has jurisdiction'. I'.to'1 '.to' bind .a muhic'ipal corporation and a 'harbpui-. board .[by an award, except so far as relates. officers and servants lawfully appointed'by • itbe'corporation.'or '.board [under Sections ,70 br 38, who are paid by salary , arid "do not "receive, wages. '• • ' .' ' : : His Honour Mr. ; Justice. Chapman read, a Separate judgment,' which;- did not" disagree in' tho main issue.'