"ABANDON IT."

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1477, 27 June 1912, Page 4

"ABANDON IT."

ATTEMPT A 1 DOMINION AWARD. THE PROCEDURE. ''COMPLICATED AM) CONFUSED^;; ■ - JUDGE SIM'S COMMENT. .' i." ■"'An ftslraordinary state' of* affairs' 1# connection. with the framing of a statute » wo„iwcn revealed !,y a decision of tha.-V' Couji.. of .arbitration delivered •>y .Mr. Justin Sim in the matter 'of tho ■ -proposed application bv the- New;?; ' 1 ' A-alanu iterated Bates' and Pastry-#-irr ,nf — 1 Association' of VorkcraSs'.K lc-i iV JJomiinon £v\v<u'd. -'wz # "<nt l g ' v '"B Jiui-inent, his Honour said:'i.-': ■ It was proposed that Hie ann'icatiouHM J V ll ? f ,;l: ' mlu, , n for a Dominion aw-d" - fe-ivwTV" ot tho" « <i lnst ?- n ' lil ° Pff-'i't month, Iho amending Act of 19U, which •authorised tlio inaKuiif of such, an wardX v camo .into foreo on .March 1, 1912, but'-i ■ tap regulations prescribing the procedure in; connection ■ with such' applications'-.'.-'--wero not gazetted until Juno 13, ■■■ Matter Reduccd to an Absurdity. ■<-"The association became so impatient S : at tho long delay on tire part of tiio"s i ; ,'ll lo 'ir- Department ia. having these regu-jjW: lanous framed, that, in 1 anticipation of tlio regulations, an application for aWf Dominion award was framed and filed?'*:" Mi some,of the industrial districts of the;;® Dominion. When tho proceedings in cimncetioii with this application were ex- 'M amiriod, they were found to be bo dcleetiyo. that it was impossible to with thu application in its- then form, and tho parties wero informed of ihis/'.C:; i'hc association has now applied to thu . Court for directions as to iurtiicr, pro«£:' : ;; oeediiigs in connection, with the apphca-;«%' : tion. The Court, of course, cannot any_ directions to the association on tlio ■' ■:. subject. All that it c.;m do-is to luiiko suggestions with regard to. future pro- ' ¥ c u 31 \n„ cirefully considered Iho provisions of Section J of tlio Act of 1911 .i and of ihe nidations thereunder, we have no hesitation in advising the asso- . eiation to abandon the attempt to obtain an award under the Act in its pmsent shape. Tlio procedure is so complicated and confused that month's probably would : M elapse before tho heating could be reach-.* ':, 0(K The chief difficulty arises from thß~J.i' provision contained iu Subsection 5 oK;V? Section 1 us to fclie place uf hearing. 'flint. provides that tho application shall bowe. 1 heard sit such place or places as tho ; parties may ngrco on, or, in default of.ij:; such agreement, as the Court, on thews' application of any patty after uotieo the prescribed form to the other pariies to tho dispute, directs. Such a provisiosi;!j,' might ho suitable in connection wish. ordinary lawsuits, where, in the majority ;: '??; of cases, there are only two parties. Even J? ;;, in such a case, it. would bo rather a'Hjv novelty to proscribe that the parlies wew"-'v; to agree us to tho place where tho caso should be tried. But to make such a pro- :s£■ vision in tho caso of an industrial dispute,' .-:H where there are perhaps hundreds ofparties, is to reduce the whole matter. : to im absurdity. <

The Framer of the Act, "Tho fact that such a provision was put in the Act suggests lhat the framer of tho Act had a very slight acQUiunt.uiee' with the first principles of procedure,, and with tiie nature of, proceedings in ccnnection with industrial disputes. _ The effect o£ the section, practically, is !a give to every master , bakc-r in the Do-* miivioa a right, in the'present'case, to be heard oil tho subject of the place or maces where the application is to bo heard. An attempt .is-made to avoid' this difficult)- by providing in the regulations that the memorandum of agreement as to the place or places of heariag may be signed by one person on behalf of the respondents. But: that only hides tho difficulty, and does not", •.■amove it; for, of course, a person would have a rigrht to sign: «ueh..-an- agreement' on .behalf of other parties only on- being authorisedto do 50... Before he could sign the agree.ment, Ik-would have (o-Lo. expressly sn-; t-horised to do so by all- the' other" respondent* in the dispute.,. It is uot M make out from thejregulatiom what tlin' exact procedure' is-,intended to be, for the forms and regulations, seem to be in conflict on some points, but the following seem to be the steps contemplated. Tl» application h.o.s to be filed in each industrial district affected thereby. Xotieo of the application to be given to all the parties proposed to ba bound. Then if tliev do not agree with tho applicant as to the place or places of ,hearing, notice has to be given to them of an application to tho Cowrt to fix the placo of tearing. ;■ "Can Anything be More Absurd?" "Nothing is' : said as to the place where' this last application is to bo* heard, and in order ta determine whether a hearing of the dispute should take place nt, sny, Wellington or Christahurch, the Court might have to sit find hear the parties at Auckland, Wellington, Chrisichurch, (•.nd Dunedin. Can anything re ore absurd be imagined? When the Court has at length settled the place, or places of hear-, nig, then the .Tudse has to fix the dp.'ra of hearing; and notice of this fixture has to bo sent to all tho parties. Tho result: i-j that on an application for a Dominion award no fewer "than three sets tf notices, may have to bo sent out to all the parties.' thereto. It has been nacessnry to discus', the Act and regulations in this way in order to set forth the reasons for advising the association to abandon its attempt to obtain tm award under the Act of 1911. The Act raises other difficulties also which it is not necessary to refer to at present." .. In conclusion, the Court indicated Hin course it considers the association would do well to (adopt.