SLIPSHOD DRAFTING.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1725, 16 April 1913, Page 4

SLIPSHOD DRAFTING.

ARBITRATION ACT.

INTENT OF CLAUSE 'DEFEATED,

(By Telegraph.—l'rcsa Association.) Auckland, April 15. An application was' recently mado by Mr. Hammond on behalf of tho Auckland and Suburban Local Bodies' Labourers' Union to have parties added to tho Auckland and Suburban Local Bodies' Labourers' Award. Judgment was given to-day nt tho Arbitration Court which showed that the parties could not' bo added to tho award owing to tho careless drafting of a clause in tho Industrial Conciliation nml Arbitration Amendment Act, 1911. The application was 0110 to liavo the Mangero Road Board and certain other local bodies added as parties to tho award. It appears that there was an industrial disputo between tho Labourers Union and . the Auckland City Council and certain other local bodies. This disputo was referred for settlement under tho provisions of tho Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and n recommendation for tho settlement of the was made by tho Council of Conciliation. Tho notices required by Subsection 10 of Section 7 of tho Act were duly' in prescribed form. No notice ot disagreement was filed by anv of tho parties and the notices provided for by Sub-section 20, Scction 7, were duly given, The recommendation, it is claim- ™> n°iv operates as nn award by virtue of Subjection 20, Section 7, "Soction 1," proceeds the judgment, provides that when the recommendation °i a ,£ ouno " Conciliation is filed with tho Clerk of Awards, together with a notification that no settlement had been arrived at, tho Clerk of Awards shall give notico to tho parties to tho disputo of tho filing of tho recommendation, and requiring them, if they disagree with the recommendation, to signify their disagreement. within one month. , The section then provides that if, within the timo aforesaid, no notico of disagreement has been filed, tho clork shall give notico to tho parties of the fact and tho recommendation shall, as from seven days after dato of notice, J operate and bo en« forceablo in the same manner as an award duly executed and filed by the parties. . "T' lo question then is," .continues the judgment, what is an award executed and filed by the parties? The answer is that no such an award is known to the law. Parties to an industrial disputo may cxecuto and filo an industrial agreement. They have no power, howovcr. to make any award —that power can only be exercised by tiio Arbitration Court. If theroforo the words of tho section be road in their plain and ordinary meaning, the section is wholly ineffective. Tho recommendation is to havo tho offect of something which docs not exist. The question then arises whether, by any recognised method of interpretation, an intelligiblo meaning can be given to the words of the section. Such a meaning could .be given to these words if they were read as referring to an award duly niado and filed by tho Court. It appears to us, howovcr, that wo aro not justified in substituting other words for those used bv tho Legislature. The rule is ■ that where tho words of a statute aro plain there is no placo for interpretation. "In tho present case," {bo judgment concludes, "tho words of tho statute are plain and unambiguous, and they must be construed, therefore, in their ordinary sense although the result is to lead to nn absurdity. Wo must hold then that tho recommendation is a mere nullity, and does not bind any of tho parties to the dispute. It would bo useless, therefore, to add parties to it, and tho application is dismissed. It is unfortunate that what may be surmised to havo been tho intention of tho Legislature should bo defeated in this way by careless and incompetent drafting."