SHEARING SHED HANDS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1006, 22 December 1910, Page 8

SHEARING SHED HANDS.

DECISION AT DUNEDIN. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.! Ounedln, December 21. In giving judgment in the shearingshed, hands' case,| in which'an award was refused, .the ■ Arbitration Court stated that the -present case was governed by the decision in a recent case in the Canterbury district. Unless the recent amendment of ; the- Arbitration Act has altered tlie'law.on the subject, section 3 of: the I ,amending Act gives tho Court power, in their discretion, to waive any. technical, irregularity. or omission'which- may .have .occurred in the submission of; the, dispute to the Court. The point.decided,in the Canterbury. , case . was. that if, when . the union purported to . refer the dispute for ■ setloment, .there was -.no - dispute in existence at the time there was no jurisdiction to make an award. It was also decided that, for the' purpose of ascertaining whether there was a dispute, or not, a dispute between'A and B could not be treated'as a dispute between C> and D. The only question is whether' the amendment of tho Act has 'altered the law as thus declared by tho. Court. It appears that it has not. The power given by the Act is. to waive any ■ technical irregularity or oitiission, hut the defret in tho present case ; is not a technical irregularity or omission. It is a defect which goes to the jurisdiction of tho Court. The language used by the Legislature clearly postulates an existing dispute 'which has been' submitted for settlement.' If there is not such a. dispute, then section 3 of the ;Amendinent Act cannot apply. A dispute must exist when steps are taken to submit it for settlement. ' ,

Mr. M'Cullough docs not concur in the judgment. His view is expressed in tho subjoined statement: "I desire to record my dissei-t from the decision. I am not prepared to discuss the legal point raised by bis Honour from the legal point of view, but, in my opinion, this Court, being primarily an industrial Court, is expressly authorised- to scttlo .tliose matters coming before it in equity and good conscience, and,'as far as. possible, to dispeuso with legal formalities. Taking tliis into consideration, tpgctlier with the fact that Parliament apparently unanimously passed tho Act to enable, the Court to overcome the legal obstacles' which arose in Canterbury, I am unable to concur in the Court's refusal to make an award, believing that the evident intention of the Legislature should have been - given effect to, and an award mad&-