EXEMPTION SOUGHT FROM AWARDS

Dominion, Volume 32, Issue 147, 17 March 1939, Page 10

EXEMPTION SOUGHT FROM AWARDS

Question For Court

SOCIETIES NOT RUN FOR PECUNIARY GAIN

Legal submissions on an issue of considerable interest were heard by the Court of Arbitration iu Wellington this week, the question being whether societies or institutions not run for pecuniary gain should be exempted from awards. The Court reserved its decision. The ease was first heard on Tuesday, when Mr. H. J. Bishop appealed against decisions of the magistrate of the Industrial Court, Mr. J. A. Gilmour, in adding the Manawatu and West Coast A. and P. Association as a party to the clerical workers’ award (except regarding the overtime provisions for show days and 14 days preceding them), and the Wellington Y.M.C.A. as a party to the New Zealand Private Hotel Employees’ Award (except regarding the engagement of staff). In conjunction with the appeals Mr. Bishop sought exemption from the awards for both appellants. He submitted that neither was run for pecuniary gain and that the decisions of the magistrate were outside the jurisdiction of the Court under section 154 (pecuniary gain) of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitraiton Act, and that they were contrary to tlie Court’s policy.

Section 154 of the Act states: No award or industrial agreement made after the commencement of this Act shall affect the employment of any worker who is employed otherwise than for the direct or indirect pecuniary gain of an employer. Provided that this section shall not be deemed to exempt any local authority or body corporate or any chartered club or racing club, trotting club or hunt club from the operation of any award or industrial agreement. Mr. Bishop submitted that neither of the appellants was a corporate body in the nature of a local authority, and therefore was exempt. Meaning of Corporate Body. For the respondents, Mr. T. P. Cleary submitted that the appellants were corporate bodies and therefore came under the jurisdiction of the Court, and that Mr. Bishop’s interpretation that any local authority or body corporate meant any local authority or body corporate in the nature of a local authority did violence to the words of the section.

Regarding the contention that it was contrary to the policy of the Court to join to awards institutions not operating for pecuniary gain, Mr. Cleary submitted that the question of pecuniary gain was irrelevant iu the case of bodies corporate. It was only in the case of unincorporated institutions that the Court was concerned to inquire into the question of pecuniary gain. Most of the cases relied on by Mr. Bishop were cases in which unincorporated bodies had secured exemption from awards. The Court had frequently joined such bodies as the A. and P. Association to awards, and it could not be said to be contrary to the Court’s policy that this should be done.

The Court would commonly exempt an employer whose principal business was not covered by the award, but the present cases were not in that category, said Mr. Cleary. He added that the trend of the legislative amendments had been to restrict and not to enlarge exemptions, and to grant a partial exemption ou the undertaking of the exempted employer to abide by the conditions of the award would be destructive of the principles on which the I.C. and A. Act was based. “Do Not Like Awards.”

“Those people say they do not like awards. A lot of people do not like awards,” said Mr. Cleary. “However, if they arc all to be entitled to say so to the Court, give a guarantee to abide by relevant awards and secure exemption, then the whole basis of the I.C. and A. Act will crumble.”

The question was not whether members of corporate bodies acquired gain, but whether the corporate bodies did, submitted Mr. Cleary. No one would suggest that the Y.M.C.A. or the A. and P. Society were conducted for the purposes of enriching its members or officials, but it was common ground that both did make charges which resulted in profits to the corporate body. That was the crux of the matter.