WATERSIDE WORKERS DISPUTE.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1442, 17 May 1912, Page 2

WATERSIDE WORKERS DISPUTE.

EFFECT OF CANCELLED ILLUSTRATION.

(Br Telccraph—Press Association.!

Auckland, May 15. Judgment "'us Riven in the Arbitration Court (o-dny by Sir- Justice .Sim m U>« muUer of lia industrial dispute be ween Noaring and Co. and other employers nnd the Auckland Waterside Workers Industrial I'iiion of Workers, this. application (wade by the employers; foi an award was dismissed, on the ground that if the operation of cancelling the union ■ icisi ration untJci the Industrial Conciliation" ami Arbitration Act had pursued its proper eon I*o il would have been impossible for the Court to have made, an award. ~ ~ „ .... "It appears from the evidence, said Ins Honour, "(hat application by the union for the cancellation of its registration was received by' the. Registrar on January dO last. In acknowledging ou February 1 tit* receipt of an application, ttia. Registrar said that tho application appeared, to b« in order. A notice of the Registrar s intention to cancel the registration was duly published in tho Ontette on February 8, 191?. The sijr weeks referred to in lh« isotiee expired on March 21, and in tiw ordinary course of events the registration of the 'union would have been cancelled shortly after that date. The Registrar refused, however, to proceed with tho cancellation, for the reason that conciliation proceedings were in progress in connection with tho present dispute, and that cancellation was prohibited. I'herelore, bv a proviso to Sub-Section A of Srectmn "1 of the principal Act of WOB, it appears to us thai: in the circumstances Hii<s was not a valid ground for refusing cancellation." / , , „ His Honour said thai whereas Hip Conciliation had appointed .•..wessnrs bv writing in accordance with (he provisions of the Act on January HI, tho anplicatinn for cancellation was mada on Ja'mmrv SO: hence (ho.-o proceedings did nol eniiriilnle any bar In cancellation. The union, iiiereiore. ought U> be treated as if it had ceased to exist for (he purlins* of making awards at the date when its registration ought to have- been cancelled. There was another ground ak'i for refusing to. make an award. Hii honour said the employers who objected to an award being made employ about M per cent, of the labour affected by the dispute. These, employers were working under an agreement made with the union in January last, outside of the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration • Act. The agreement itself was no bar t*> the making of an award, but if such wer* made in the term? of the recommendation of Hie Conciliation Court, the result would ]\e to compel the employers to pay higher rates than thnsu fixed'by the agreement for several kinds of work. "That such a result as 'his would be produced is of itself a sufficient ground for refusing to make an award," concluded his Honour.