A NEW UNION

Dominion, Volume 36, Issue 33, 3 November 1942, Page 3

A NEW UNION

Registration Opposed

The Court of Arbitration .yesterday heard a ease stated by the registrar of industrial unions, Mr. E. B. Taylor, asking for the direction of the Court as to whether he should admit the registration of the Aircraft Manufacturers’ Employees’ Society of Workers. The question the registrar put to the Court was. Is the applicant society entitled to registration on the ground that section 4 (I) of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1936, does hot apply'.' The Court comprised Mr. Justice Tyndall and Messrs. AV. Cecil Prime (employers ’representative) and A. L. Moutieth (workers’ representative). Mr. E. Warner, secretary ot the Web lington Trades and Labour Council, said that the question bristled with legal difficulties, and, as the applicant society had a legal representative present, be asked that the case should be adjourned for a fortnight’in order that the Trades and Labour Council could engage counsel. Mr. E. P. Huy, counsel for the applicant society, questioned, whether the Court had jurisdiction to decide the question asked. He asked whether the Court would require to hear evidence. Mr. L. Glover, who appeared for the Wellington Conch and Motor-Body Builders’ Union of Workers, said that the applicant society consisted of workers in the factory of the de Havilland Aircraft Company of New Zealand, Ltd., many of whom were members of his union. Mr. Justice 'Tyndall said it would be necessary to hear evidence. Personally, he wanted to view the job. No doubt the Court had the right to give a direction to the registrar on the matter, but personally he had formed the opinion that any advice the Court might give would not be binding on anybody. He thought the most sensible course would be for the parties to confer in a genuine attempt to arrive at a solution. The question of the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour was involved. Mr. Hay suggested that the registrar should preside at the conference. Mr. AV. J. Mountjoy, who appeared for the Wellington Coach and Motor-Body Builders’ Union of Employers, said that it was a case of body-snatching with the unions. One union wanted the coachbuilders, another the engineers, another the painters, and so on. The de Havilland Co. preferred that the Court should deal with the matter. The registrar of industrial unions said that the reason he had asked the Court for a direction was because of the intricate law points involved. The whole question was, what is the same industry"! He would be glad to have the guidance of the Court. Mr. J. Tucker, secretary of the Aircraft Manufacturers Employees’ Society of Workers, said that since 1936 there was no union to which these men could belong. He had been directed by a high official to make friends with the Federation of Labour if he wanted the registrar lion to go through. The Federation of Labour wanted its bite out of the industry. “I had sons and grandsons fighting in the last war and in the present war for liberty,” he said. “I can’t stand injustice, trickery and greed, and therefore I am the scapegoat in this case.” After an adjournment, Ml". Mouutjoy said his principals were prepared to meet in conference, on the understanding that there was to be a comprehensive award to cover the industry. Mr. Justice Tyndall: What you suggest is what is contained iu section 95 of the Act—one union in each industry. There is no one in this country who wants to interfere with the manufacture of aircraft; if there is, he can only be classed as a traitor. His Honour said the matter would be adjourned sine die, with best wishes for the conference. Mr. Glover said that complete agreement had been reached in the coach and motor-body builders’ dispute except for the question of the registration of the new union.

Section 4 (1) of the I.G. and A. Amendment Act, 1936, provides that where at any time after the passing of the Act application is made for the registration of any society (including a trade union) as an industrial union of employers or workers, and there is in the same industrial district an existing union of employers or workers registered iu respect of the same industry (whether or not the maximum number of members of that union is limited by its rules or otherwise), or there is in the same industrial district an existing trade union which was registered as such before May 1, 1936, and to which members of the applicant society could properly belong, the registrar shall not register the applicant society as an industrial union except with the concurrence of the Minister. >