LAUNDRY WORKERS

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 8, 10 July 1923, Page 4

LAUNDRY WORKERS

UNION AND NON-UNION EM-

PLOYEES.

(BI KI.EGH4TH.— PRESS ASSOCIATION)

AUCKLAND, 9th July. When the Auckland laundry worker's' dispute was being considered under the Labour Disputes -Investigation Act last week it, was sought to include Chinese laundries and laundries in certain country districts. Mr. Wright, for the employers, raised a point us to whether employers who did not employ members of the union Could be made "parties to the dispute. Mr. Wright asked Unit 'certain questions be submitted to the Labour Department, Wellington. This was done, and tho following answers have been received :—

(1) An employer who does not employ a. m-?mber i of tho union-makins apptk-a-■t-ion undci- this Act cannot be made, aparly of the dispute. (8) If tho ivu>n> of .in omployiT win., docs .not employ .-.- nicmber of Iho union appeai-K on iho list, of parties t<> file jSrcomsnt-. such nmployei- is not bound oy tho. iigrcrinent in respect to non-union workfii-s whi-.m ho cmpk.ys. (6) The Pcpurtmeiit did not think that ai: employe)- who is a pn-.-ty to the ngrceDiriil, -and who cmjiluys bolli moinbors anil iioii-nioiiibcirs, is bound by the agivnnnjril. in rc-Kpi'ut to noii-mcmhon:.

(41 if tin. name oF an' employer who at the. time of the dispute- did not employ a member of the union appears on the list of parties, and that employer afterwards employs a- member of the union, tho. employer is not- bound by the ajivcument,, cither in respect tv the member of tlm -.inimi or in respect (v doi;nicmbcvs.

(5) There is no power given to the Conciliation Commissioner or to t!ir> cli;iirman of! the Labour Dif.putes Comuiitlcie to strike mil, • lhe unrno of liny einplwj-Hi 1, hm- any Mich employer has. al coune, a right to refuse to agree.