ARBITRATION COURT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 987, 30 November 1910, Page 5

ARBITRATION COURT.

SHEARING-SHED HANDS CASE. NO AWARD AND WHY. (By Telegraph.—Prcsa Association.} Christoliuroh, November 29. Tho .Arbitration Court this morning delivered its decision on the question as to whether tho Court had jurisdiction to make an award in the disputo between-tho Canterbury Shearers' Union and tho Canterbury Shcepowners' Union of Employers. The Court held that the jurisdiction conferred on tbe Court was for the settlement and determination of- industrial disputes referred to it under the provisions of the Act. Before the Court was entitled to make an award there must bo an "industrial dispute" as defined by the Act, and that dispute, must have been referred to tho Court for settlement in the prescribed manner. In tho month of June, 1910, the Shearers' Union made application m prescribed form to have an.industrial dispute between itself and fhe Sheopowners' Union heard by the Council of Conciliation. The dispute related to wages and other conditions of the work of shed hands employed during shearing. The application was dated June 14, 1910, and was filed on, June 28, 19101 Before this application was filed 'Hit. Shearers' Union had not made any demands on the Shcepowners' Union in connection with shed hands, and there had not been any communication between the two unions on. tho subject. It seemed, therefore, that there wa3 no dispute arising directly between the two parties when the application was filed by tho Shearers' Union. It W;t3 claimed, however, that the communication between the 'New Zealand Shearers' and Woolshed Employees' Association and the New Zealand Sheepowners , Federation had.the effect of creating a dispute between tho Shearers' Union, which was one of the unions forming the association, and the Sheepowners' Union, which was a member of the federation.

These communications began with a letter written on April 14, 1910, by the secretary of the association to tho' federation. Tho association was not registered under the Act until May 28, 1910, and .the federation had not been registered under the Act. It might be the case that the association, although not registered, had power (on behalf of tho several unions composing it) to make, demands on employers with regard to shearers and shod hands, but there was nothing before tho Court to show that the federation had any authority to 'deal with such demands on behalf of the Sheepowners' Union, so as to create an industrial dispute between tho Shearers' Union and the Sheepowners' Union by refusing to accede to such demands. ■

Tho position therefore was that, when the application was filed in June, there was no industrial dispute arising directly between the Shearers' Union and the Sheepowners' Union, and there was no evidence ,that any other body had authority from tho Shecpowners' Union to originate an industrial disputo with the Shearers' Union. ' It was true .that thero was now an industrial dispute between the two unions, but that wasnot sufficient to give the Court jurisdiction. _ Before the Court could acquire jurisdiction to make-an award it inust bo clear that there was an' industrial dispute in'existeiico between two unions at the date when tho application was made. The Shearers' Union had failed to prove that there was any such dispute in existence, and tho Court had no jurisdiction to , make an award.

I The defect was one which could not bo cured under any of the provisions of tho Act relating to the. amendment of proceedings. . These provisions did not enable tho Court to confer jurisdiction on itself to make an award-in any caso where that jurisdiction did not al'ready exist. The application for an award must therefore be dismissed. Mr. J. A. M'Cullough dissented from tho decision. A PRINTER'S APPRENTICE. i The Arbitration Court gave judgment I to-day in an appeal case; Browett V. Wright... .The ease was.one in which a printer s apprentice,was. engaged at los. per week, and, while he .was receiving that sum), an award' was niado -increasing the wago to £1. Tho ground of appeal was tho validity of section G9 of the Act of 1909,, and it was sought to obtain power to have the apprentice paid the full wage. . . His Honour stated that section 69 applied only in cases where thero was inconsistency between the award,.and the contract of apprenticeship. l It was intended to apply to apprentices engajrod after it had come into operation. The Court held that thero was no inconsistency, and the caso': did not come within the operation of section 69. Tho appeal was:dismissed.