STRIKE AND AFTER.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1699, 15 March 1913, Page 2

STRIKE AND AFTER.

THE SLAUGHTERMEN. "FREE" UNION'S APPEAL TO LAW. FOR REGISTRATION. ARGUMENT AND EVIDENCE. INTERESTING STATEMENTS. The Court of Arbitration resumed its sitting in Wellington yesterday 1 for, tho purpose of hearing the appeal of tho Ngahauranga Slaughtermen's Industrial Union of Workers against tho refusal of the Labour Department t<S grant registration on tho ground that tho members of the union might conveniently belong to the existing organisation, the Wellington Slaughtermen's Union. Mr. Justice Sim presided yesterday, and, sitting with him, wero Mr. W. Scott,, employers' representative, and Mr. J, A. M'Cullough, • employees' representative. • Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.'C., with Mr. G. H. Fell, appeared for. the appellant union, while Sir -John Findlay* :K.C., with Mr. D. M. Findlay, appeared on. behalf of.the Wellington Slaughtermen's : Union, who opposed tho new union's application for registration. The Labour Department was not • represented,- but, the • Registrar of Awards had forwarded the Departmental file dealing with tho subject in'order that the Cour.t might have the papers before it. Preliminary Objection. At tlio outset, Sir' John Fiiidlay raised a preliminary objection, which he thought might obviate further argument. He submitted there had never been a valid application' before the Registrar,' because the new union, in making its aiiplieation for registration, had' complied with the j conditions required by Section 5 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act,' 1908, but had riot complied with tho conditions required ;by the amending Act of 1911 inasmuch ,as they had-not furnished tho locality in which tho'members and officers of tho union resided or- exercised their calling. His Honour: Is that' tho' ground on-" which the application was refused? Mr. Skerrott: No, your .Honour. , His Honour: Have wo anything to do with that? Sir , John ■ Findlay; My; submission .is that tliero is no valid application before tho Registrar. His Honour said tho Court.,was not in a position to decido that point now. .The Court had to decido the appeal on.tho ground.-taken by. tho Registrar. If . that ground was a bad one, tliero was no longer any right to insist on it. Sir John Findlay contended that if thoro was no valid application, tho Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the ap,peal- lodged under Section 111. Mr. Skerrett submitted that. the, Court had no .supervisory ,power. In .this case it must assume a valid application had been made. Tlio defect mentioned by Sir John Findlay could Jjo; rectified, tho Registrar could .direct that to bo dono before. the application for registration jxas granted. Tho Court, however,, could- not; inquire into that?, point, but most confino' itself to 'the appeal raised under Section 11. ' Sir John Findlay submitted that .tlio proper courso for the appellants would be to submit to .an adjournment to allow of tho conditions being complied jyith and then cbmo to, tho Court if registration were refused.T ; Mr. Skerrett declined to f,al},„in .JfitJi; any. suggestion,to adjourn, i,:;,;-;. After a brief discussion, with the meiribers of-the: Court, Mr. Justice Sim said that' the appeal was formulated' under Section ,11/ and . the Court.,jmust ,assume that, the' Registrar had;ai proper application bef oro. liim,! - .The' ' only' question '• tho Court'., could' consider Was whether : the Registrar; 'was' right, iii, the ground on which lie acted. 1 . Tho Court, was strictly limited to tho-section under which'the, appeal was laid 1 and could not go into any other question.' . ' ' Strike Weapons. Mr. Skerrett, in his ■ opening remarks, said that the appeal involved a. very important question, aiming at the very foundations of the system which had taken so many years to build. -Tho broad question was whether the Court-was going-to permit tho registration. 'Weapons;,of-, : tho ■Act to bo nsedi in maintaining-a-ho did not speak, of a strike ,'in tho legal.but in tho colloquial; preventing those, willing to work, from working. ; r ■ I .' . Sir John Findlay raised- tho. objection that Mr. Skerrett was .going beyond the confines of tho,question before the Court. Ho could not lead evidence to support his statements, which. must therefore bW irrelevant., .... . His Honour held that Mr. Skerrett was entitled to go into the conduct of tho existing union. That was relevant to'tho issuo, , Continuing, - Mr.' Skerrett pointed out that the only Aground of refusal to register was the existence of the provious union, whose members refused to' work. Tho question tben was whether'. registration' could be used to prevent all other unions from taking advantage of the provisions of the Act to. settle their conditions of labour.' In'regard to the, facts of tho" case, oounsel saiij that tliero might be some difference on minor points, but tho' salient facts were riot,'.and',coiild.nqt,.,bo in dispute. There, wero six industrial unions of slaughtermen registered—Auck-;' land, Poverty Bay, Wellington;. Canterbury, Otago, and Southland—and also, a federation, of . which, these, unions' were branches. In various parts of the Dominion, these unions, had obtained awards or entered into agreements with the employers regarding c'onditioris of labour. The conditions in other parts' did not materially differ from tbo conditions under which.the Wellington Slaughtermen's Union worked and which it would be necessary for counsel to bring under his Honour's notice. . Companies And "Free" Labourers, Counsel then briefly traced tho history of the recent trouble, leading up' to tho timo when the various' awards and. agreements expired and when the men inade. the fresh demands on the.companies. He asked the Court to consider what were the positions-of the various .parties hero'.' The companies on the one hand had three courses open to them: submit to the union's demands: close up the works; engage such other labour as they could to carry on. The unions on the other hand knew, that the companies could not afford to close up, and this was the pressure they brought to bear—eithor they got their terms or ceased work. The position between the two bodies of workers was that a cleavage necessarily arose between the "free" labourers on tho one hand and tlio unions on tho other. The unionists would regard these men ("free]' labourers) as disloyal to labour. Cohesion between tho two sets, of workers was impossible. All that was. possible was conflict and diversity of interest. , Counsel went on to explain that the "free" labourers hnd entered into an agreenent with tho companies which they pionosed to carry out under the Act if the' Court allowed this anpeal. The courso t!iat had been adopt-, ed to block, the new union from registering was. absolutely end entirely agaiiist. the principle of the . Arbitration Act. Counsel submitted that what was contemplated by tho Act wns that, when awards wero made (even though thev expired on a fixed date), the existing state of affairs should continue until the narties camo to the Court to adjust (heir difference? again. He further submitted that what had actually taken place after January 18 last' was really a fraud upon tho Act. Here counsel summarised the uosition os it stands at present between the comnanies. the old union, which had refused io work, and the new union, which was willing to work. He pointed out that if the existing nnion were allowed to use the weapons of registration, they might refuse to work, refuse to invoice the Court, and block tilio union of real workers from taking advantago of the provisions of the Act. What was the object of the Act? Could it be suggested for a moment that it was to prevent, any hntly of workers front ntiproaohinj; the judgment sent of tho

Court? He submitted that it was only to prevent a body of workers coming to tho CoUrt when they wero already adequately and thoroughly represented by an existing union. Counsel contended that there was clearly a wide diversity of interest between tho two bodies of workers, and ho quoted authorities to support his contention that in such instances tho Court was justified in directing the registration of a separato union. "Organisation Well Beaten." Thomas W. Rowley, Doputy-Registrar of Industrial Unions, was called by Mr. Skerrett to produce rules of tho Wellington Slaughtermen's Union, and rules of the Federation. Witness explained the steps that had been taken by tho Wellington Union for tho cancellation of registration and later for re-registration, lie also gave evidence as to tho refusal to register the new union and the grounds of -refusal. Michael- John Reardon, secretary of the Federated Slaughtermen's Union, and of the Wellington branch, 6aid _ that the reason for the cancellation _ of registration was that the union uas not satisfied with the existing terms and conditions'of employment. The management of the dispute rested with tho Federation, 6ubjoat always to tho representations of tho unions. What Jiad been dono was done with tho full concurrence of tho Wellington Union. The Federation had not received an offer of 275, 6d. per hundred from tho companies, and they had never formally withdrawn their demands upon, tho cbmpanies. ; Waited' Upon tho.Prime Minister. Mr. Skerrett: Were they withdrawn in any way,: ~ Mr. Reardon: About the middle of February 1.-waited upon tho Prime Minister and. told . him. that tho organisation was well beaten,'and that if ho could bring tho parties together a settlement would bo -possible. He said: "What conditions aro you. laying downP" and I said: "Any conditions you can get for _ us will to satisfactory to us." The Prime Minister said ho would open, negotiations with the companies with a view to a settlement. In five or six days' time he 6ent for me, and told mo he was unable to effect a settlement as tho companies considered that no good .'purpose could bo served by, a conference. Mr. Skerrett: Was that tho only action you took?. • : ■ Mr. Reardon : I communicated with tho Sheep Farmers' Association, saying I had information, the farmers wero anxious for a settlement, and that if they wero prepared to pay the 30s. we were prepared to givo great modifications in tho matter of conditions, 'That'was before 'I saw tho Prime Minister. Mr. Skerrett: Did' you'take any .other steps?'"" ' ~:l. Mr.'Reardohi Yos. I,met tho representatives'of tho-small companies in Gisborne, Wanjanui,' Pattsa; and Waingawa, with a view, to effecting a settlement, and on all occasions lintimated to them that if we. got the 30s. wo wero prepared to consider a substantial modification of condition's.' ' Mr. Skerrett: You never had abandoned. your claim, for SOs; ? Mr. Reardon:'Yes—when I spoko to the Primo Minister. Mr. Skerrett: Is it not a fact that n embers of your, union have' approached you and asked for permission to work on the same terms.as the existing agreement between the now workers and tho companies?. Witness replied that tho suggestion, had come from, him in the first' place. Tho bulk of members wore now engaged labouring, but about 60 or 70 wero slaughtering. Ho had never communicated officially with tho, companies that tho union was. prepared' to accept tho conditions 'that-weno.being offered to the "free",labpurors,.. A, b.allott that had been taken was .'against, tho. acceptance' of the new' terms. ■■■ ■ , . Mr. Reardon and tho, Premier. To Sir John Findlay:, Tho membership, embraced, in, the Federation was 875. There. were about 250 in . tho Wellington branch at the present time. : ,:Sir..Johtl -Findlay: You told Mr. Skorretifiyou went to Mr; . Massey. Did'you': have authority, to wait upon.him? . Mr. Reardon: Yes. ,It ,was agreed upon, by tho executive,that'J-elioiild do 60. ' Sir-John Findlay: You asked Mr. Massey to. arrange a, conference? Sir. Reardon: ,Yes. After five ,or six days he told mo,-ho wps sorry ho could not get the companies to, meet me, , and tliat they, said no. good purpose would bo served by having a oonferonco. Sir Jolin Findlay: If the oompanies had chosen to meet you, would there have been, a settlement? Mr. Reardoa: Undoubtedly. Sir John Findlay: You 6ay you advocated tho acoaptanco of tho companies' terms?' Mr. Rear Jon: As a matter of fact I recommended , tho acceptance of the .terms from, the outset. ' : ;Mf. Skerrett ,(in re-examination): Wero you aware'that tho Primo Minister proposed to make overtures to the companies without disclosing tho fact that he had been approached by you or by tho organisation which, you represent? Witness denied that ho was aware of this. In answer to a further question, witness said lie did not expect that the Prime Minister would inform the companies that the union was beaten all along tho lino and would, accept terms. Ho judged this by what lie would liavo dono him-selfrr-by the. honourable understanding.be-. tween man and man. Ho expected -that tho Prime Minister would endeavour to effect an impartial settlement. A little later, in answer to another question by Mr. Skerrett, witness denied having said at. a conference, in Mr. Foster's office, that tho union would' accept tho demands and only tho demands. 'Eustace D. H. Stocker, Clerk, of Awards, and, Geo. P. White, secretary of the Ngahaurariga ..Union, also givo evidence; The latter deolared that tlio mem. bership ; of his union .was between one hundred, and. fifty- and one hundred and sixty. They were employed at Ngaliauranga arid Petone. Cross-oxamined by. Sir John Findlay, White said l lie was new to this business —a new secretary and n now slaughterman. (Laughter.) Ho was a Victorian and had not been a member of any union in Australia, but was a member of tho Freezers' Union in the Dominion, Other witnesses wero called by Mr. Skerrett to give evidence as to ill-feeling borne by, members of the old' union to members of tho union. This closed Mr. Skerrett's case and Sir John Findlay . then intimated that ho was calling no evidence, from his side. • Mr. Skerrett. in a few closing remarks, pointed out that by the timo the old union had been prepared- to accept the terms of the companies a largo number of "free" labourers had been employed, and the companies felt, it was their bounden 'duty to protect them. It was submitted that re-registration of the' old union was only intended to bar the free workers' and tho coniDanies. The.Two Unions. Sir John Findlay remarked that Mr. Skerrett had presented a case that was almost entirely besido the question. Tho real question was a very narrow ono: Was the Registrar right in his refusal to register tho new union It was submitted that ho was right. Tho onus was upon tho new union to prove that the existing union did not provide sufficient convenience for the members of tho new body. They had .failed to discharge that onus before, tho Refistrar, and Mr. Skerrett had failed to present to tho Court a caso strong enough to justify tho existence of a separate union. The oases wero all clear that before this could be justified tliero must bo some diversity of interest—an' inherent antagonism between tho classes of work onwhich the union was'based. It was not contended .that there was any diversity of interest between the unions in tho classes of work in which they wero engaged. Each was a slaughtermen's union, and tliero was a complcto unity of interest between them. Ho submitted that all the eases touching on this question were in his favour, and quoted several in support of his contention. It was quito true that each caso must bo dealt with under tlio particular circmnstnnees under which it arises, but he would like to refer to a guiding principle running through the whole scheme, Tho policy of tho Act was to avoid multiplicilv of unions, which would destroy tho cardinal principle of tho Act, ami reduce it in many instances to an absurdity. It had been suggested that the Wellington Union had committed a breach of faith, even though they had not been actually guilty of an' illegal strike. Oid Union's Undertaking. What they did,-however, was perfectly legal. They faithfully cavried out their

undertaking, and fulfilled their obligations right up to tho very, timo that their agreement expired. His Honour: Did they? Didn't thoy as solemnly as possible undertake to renew the agreement for two years? Sir John Findlay replied that that was if they were an existing union, but they had cancelled their registration. They had a perfect legal and moral right to do what tlioy had dono and a perfect right to ask for re-registration. It could not bo' said that this step was taken to block tho w union, bccauso they were actually registered again some days before tho application from tho new union was lodged. So that when the latter applied. for registration. thero was an existing union. If this appeal were allowed, the effect of it would bo to practically destroy the present union. It would amount to, nothing more or less than a cancellation of registration, and would entail hardships on the workers which, he submitted, the Court should not inflict, i Mr. SkcTrett had spoken of the importance of the caso) Counsel agreed that thoy were touching tho vital points of tho whole system, and if this appeal were allowed— if a small branch of workers wero to be permitted to break off and enter into binding agreements with the employers who were fighting tho existing unionthen he submitted that instead of industrial peace they would have nothing but turmoil and strife. In conclusion ho submitted that no good reason had'been made out to justify the existence of a separate union. All that Mr. Skerrett had done was to present a case which, proved that the effect of allowing this appeal would bo to annul the existing union. Judgment was reserved. • •