FARM LABOUR

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2767, 10 May 1916, Page 8

FARM LABOUR

SHEEP OWNERS & SHEARERS,

ALSO OTHER WORKERS

CASE REMARKABLY TANGLED In August, 1915, an award was made binding tho Marlborough Sheepowuers' n „ U | lo A n ,r a , n !? n' 1 ? 0 bhearers' and Woolshed lwnployees' Union with regard to tho terms and conditions of employment of shed hands. In .tho Arbitration Court in Wellington yesterday morning, Mr. P. J. O'flegan, as counsel for tho employees' union, moved a motion tor direction in the matter of extending tho award to other districts, on the ground that it was inconvenient and impracticable to join parties by individual citation. Counsel quoted Section 92 of the principal Act, which, be said, gave the Court power to extend awards so; as to join ftnd bind as party thereto -feny specific employer in New Zealand not then bound thereby. Section 6of the amending Act, ho mentionad, provided — "lNotwithstandiiiE anything in Section '92 tho Court may, on the application of any party, extond the award so as to join and bind as parties all unions-and employers in. New Zealand connected with the same industry." • ; Counsel contended that tlio only cirect of Section 6 was to dispense with : .the requirement of specific citation provided for by Section 92 It was admitted that.the exercise of the jurisdiction, was purely discretionary by ; the Court. . •

Mr. Jones, representing the employers, contended-that it would bo exceedingly unfair to bind people without notification. ..... . . ' Mr. o'Began: I am rather surprised at JUr. Jones s attitude, because when 1 saw him —- ,r, His ., H ° no ? r ,, Mt -' Justice Stringer (President of the Court): I don't know that you need go into that, becanso if Mr. .Jones . had not raised tho point I should have had to. ' His ( Honour said that the way to do tho thing would be to go through the sheep returns, and if the citations were confined to owners who had flocks of any size, .probably, there would" be very little objection raised. ■ • Mr. O'Kegan said ho could only state what he was instructed. His Honour; With regard to the power of the.Court to do what we have been asked to do, I do,p't know that it is ■necessary to givo any final decision, and we will, therefore, refrain from doing so. ..-;•. However, the language ■ of : the Act is wide; and there may still be the power Mr. O'Kegan says there is. But even-assuming we have the power, we are not prepared to exercise-it. We are prepared to extend the award to employers''associations who consent to it, but with Tegard to notifying employers throughout the Dominion we see no objection to the ordinary course of citing those intended'to bo bound.' 'As pointed out, there may bo a great number of citations, but that often occurs in other cases. The sheep returns can be used to obtain tho names of flock-owners of any size. 'We will make an order extending this agreement to the associations of cmplovers who consent, and leave the anion to take its own course-with regard to the joining- of individual owners in other parts of the Dominion.

AN AMALGAMATION. AN "EXTREMELY CONFUSED" . ■>•..' AFFAIR. ■The Court also had..before it the case ot an application .by the Wellington Shearers Union for an adjustment of award.. The application was made under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, and was stated to bo consequent upon the amalgamation of the Wellington Shearers Union .with the Wellington Agricultural aad Pastoral Workers' Union. Mr. P.- J. O'flegan appeared in support of the application, and Mr. T. S. Weston, with whom was Mr. H. D. Acland, for the Hawkes Bay Sheepowners' Union. His Honour remarked that the papers Med were not in order, as they mentioned the New Zealand Agricultural and Pastoral, Workers' Union, and not the Wellington Agricultural and Pastoral Union. Mr. Weston said that he had another point: The registration of the New Zealand .'Agricultural and Pastoral Union was illegal. There used to be a Shearers' Union for each, district, and then there was a Shearers' Association for the whole Dominion. Also thero was a Farm Hands' Union for each district, but no association embodying these unions. Last year a meeting.of workers resolved to combine the various bodies into one big organisation, so it'was decided to apply to change the'name of the New Zealand Shearers' Association to the New Zealand Agricultural and Pastoral Workers' Association, which was. to be an amalgamation of shearers' unions ' and farm hands' unions. However, the registration was bad. .

His .Honour: What does this, combination, (supposing.it were effected) includo? The "answer was to the effect that it included all agricultural- workers, with the exception of dairy factory workers. His Honour: Why not factory workers. Mr. Weston: They are manufacturers, not producers. ' ' Mr. Hunter, representing the dairy factory workers, said that' his union' wished the Court to givo an opportunity for the stating of a case for the dairy workers, Mr. O'Eegan: There is'a. decision of Mr. Justice Sim that when a union is registered the matter be inquired into. ( .■■■•.'.,. Mr. Weston'disagreed. He said that, there was a decision by Mr. Justice Ed-' wards and Mr. Justice Cooper to the' contrary. , ' His Honour said it appeared'that the present application was not in form. Mr. O'Eegan: In my opinion, it would be better to adjourn the whole matter. It would not take long if the matter was properly before the Court.

His Honour: It all looks extremely corifused. It would be better for you to withdraw the "application, and look into the whole matter. ' . The case, was withdrawn, and is to come beforo the Court again on May 17. Mr. Hunter again raised the question of the position of the dairy, factory workers. It appeared that it was feared that there was a danger of their being.dropped entirely out of the amalgamation. His Honour: The matter will have to be looked into" from the very fcottorii. Mr. Hunter: Can we bo represented next week?His Honour: Yes. I think you should be.