EMPLOYMENT OF NONUNIONISTS

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 49, 22 November 1926, Page 16

EMPLOYMENT OF NONUNIONISTS

INTERPRETATION WANTED A WATERSIDE DISPUTE I — Dominion Specie Auckland, November 20. With a view to obtaining an interpretation of a clause in the waterside workers’ award, an action was brought against Messrs. Leonard and Diugley, Ltd., stevedores, of Auckland, in the Arbitration Court this morning by the Inspector of Awards. Nominally the plaintiff claimed to recover from the defendant the sum of £lO as penalty for alleged breach of award. On heating the circumstances Mr. Justice Frazer said the question of penalty was not really at issue, as he understood the parties desired an interpretation. The facts, which were admitted, were that defendant company on September 14, 1926, employed two non-union workers on work coming within the scope of the award, and failed to permit them to continue working till work ceased for that day. The inspector, Mr. F. F. .Grieve, said a call was made for labour end there being insufficient unionists offering, the non-unionists were employed. Op the following day without making a call the same men were al- ‘ lowed to start work on the job, but later in the morning, unionists offering their services, the non-unionists were put off and members of the union were put on in their place. Mr. Lowrie, who represented the defendants, explained that on the second day there was a call for incidental labour, and as unionists did not respond it was thought futile to call a second time for labour for a job on which nonnnionists had been employed on the previous day. When, on the second day, unionists offered their services at about 9 a.m., the non-unionists were discharged in order that unionists might be employed.. Defendants acted tinder a misconception that they were compelled to employ unionists. Properly the non-unionists having once been started were entitled to continue until the end of the day or till work was finished on that day. "The point is that, whether employfed rightly or wrongly in the first place, once started, these non-unionists were •entitled to a full day’s pay,” said His Honour. After considering the matter the Court decided that the question was complicated by the further question as to what would have happened had a call been made. Although it was possible that the Court could answer the Immediate question without reference to the rights of the unionists under the preference clause it was felt that without dealing with other matters some- ' what intricately mixed up with it the Court might lay itself open to misunderstanding. . Mr. Justice Frazer . suggested that the inspector, the union, and the employers should make a joint application for an interpretation on the basis of the questions relating to the call. Should it have been made on the second day, and what form should it have taken? The further question at issue m the present case could be added.. It was resolved to follow this course.