ARBITRATION COURT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 30, 30 October 1917, Page 3

ARBITRATION COURT

FIXTURES MADE

CLAIM FOR PREFERENCE

• A sitting of the Arbitration Court was hold yesterday mainly tO' make fixtures. On the bench were Mr. Justice Stringer, 3lr. W. Scott (employers' representative) and Mr. J. A. M'Oullousrh (workers' representative). With respect to the Wellington branch of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, Mr.~<3renfell 6&td the ironmabiors accepted the Oourt's recommendation, but the proprietors of motor garages desired to hare their names struck of! the list. It was pointed out by Mi*. Grenfell that there were now in New Zealand about 350 earagea, and the owners were entitled to a, separate award. The business was Quite distinct from that of the ironmasters. He quoted previous decisions of the Court bearing on the point, and called evidence in support of hia contention. The further hearing of the wise was adjourned to Saturday. Mr. 8. J. Eleton appeared for the union. PEEFEKENCE CLAIMED. The Wellington Builderß and Gtneral Labourers' Union, for whom Mr. At. J. Eeardou appeared, asked for preference. Tho other recommendations of tho council were accepted by the employers. Mr. W. A. Grenfell, who appeared for the employers, objected to the preference.

Mr. Iteardou said that the Conciliation Commissioner hud that certain parties to the dispute could not be found, and letters sent to thorn had beeu returned through the Dead Letter Office, and ho therefore asked that their names be struck out. There were quite a number of these.. Mr. Jußtice Stringer: Do you expect Co get preference, as asked for in, your olaim? Mr. Eeardon: Yes. His Honour: "Without restrictions as to subscriptions and under-rate conditions? Mr. Eeardon Baid that the union would meet these points. He said that the Court had given preference to the general labourers, and also to the builders' labourers. It could not be held by the employers that the attitude of the builders' labourers in the 1913 strike merited being cut off preference. His Honour: This was a Question of principle—whether the lowest olass of worker should set preference. It was an abstract question. Mr. Reardon said that the employers would not have been able to advancc the argument that the builders' labourers were not entitled to preference betvauae the Court had cancelled the right of preference previously accorded the builders' labourers. On the point whether the union oould expect to obtain preference ho said that he would convince the Court on the matter. He .referred to a case recently decided in Queensland, whore the question of preference was held Jjy the employers to be not a matter for the Court, but a question for employees and employ' ers to Bettle. That question, however, was settled by statute in New Zealand. Ho quoted the Queensland decision, in which he oontended the principle was the same, although the Act of Queensland may be differe&t to the New Zealand Aot. The 'union was contending thai if a man wanted employment he must bo a member of the union, and all that the employer had to do was to nak the applicant for work whether he was a member of the union. If the Court decided to give preference it should give an effeotive preference, and he suggested that the preference clause granted* by the Arbitration Court of Queensland should be embodied in the award. In the case of the Australian Workere' Union against the Mount Morgan' Mining Company, the Court decided that the company when employing or re-em-ploying any worker should make it a condition of such employment or reemployment that the applicant is or becomes a member of the union.

Ifr. Grenfell, in replying, said that ho was representing the Builders' and Contractors' Association, and their objection to the preference clause, was one of principle, and it an official objection on the part of the Employers' Federation. Tho t Court, prior to the advent, of Mr. Justico Bim as Judge of the Arbitration Court, invariably refused preference to labourers. It was Mr. Justice Sim who granted preference to the unions. With referenoe to the Queensland case, he pointed out that it had reference to a single oompauy: in the present case there were a variety of employers,- and such a preference was nst applicable. He contended that an employer should not be made a canvassing agent for tho unions in forcing men to join unions. The employers were not interested as to whether a man was a member of a union, but they were interested in knowing whether he was competent to do the yrork. He maintained that tho preference clause was not justified by the conditions, and he protested against it being granted. The Court reserved decision.

FIXTURES MADE. : The Arbitration Court made tho following fixtures:— Tuesday, Ootobor JOACalloway v. Renner, 10 a.m.: and bacon workers' dispute, employers' application for a supplementary award with respect to the employment of femalo6.

Wednesday, Octobor 3t.—Private hotels and restaurant workers' dispute. Thursday,' November I.—New Zealand Federation of Tailoresscs, application for war bonus, and tailors' dispute. Friday, November 2,-Strawbridg-a v. Eaton, oompensation claim; and Hyndman v. Hansford and Mills. Saturday, November 3.—Motor mcohanics' dispute. Monday, November 5.—A1l Ming v. Bevan; and Sherrfld v. N.Z. Shipping Co ■ Tuesday, Noyomber 6,—Wellington aflratcd ' water workers' dispute; metal workers, employers' application to amend tho award. , 1 Wednesday, November 7.—Wellington hairdressers, application for interpretation of the award.

Thursday, November B.—Wellington iron and brasP moulders' dispute, and boilermakors' alspute.