DEFECTIVE LEGISLATION

Evening Star, Issue 23383, 28 September 1939, Page 16

DEFECTIVE LEGISLATION

“BLANKET" PROVISION INAPPLICABLE TO DOMINION AWARDS [Per United Press Association.] AUCKLAND, September 27. “ By a curious oversight on the part of the Legislature, the blanket provisions ordained by section 5 (1} or the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitral tion Amendment Act (No. 2), 1937, are inapplicable to Dominion awards, states the Arbitration Court m a judgment. , , • -vt T.I The case was one heard in New Plymouth on September 13, when an inspector of awards sought to obtain a £lO penalty from a metal presser for an alleged' breach of the metal trades employees’ award. The breach alleged was that he employed a process worker at a wage of £3 10s for a 40-hour week in lieu of the minimum rate of 2s s£d an hour. The defendant denied that he was a party to the award, and! the question for the court was whether he had made out his case. _ “ The award is a Dominion one, the court’s judgment states. “ The defendant was not an original party to the dispute which preceded the making of the award!, but it was part of the inspector’s case that he had become a subsequent party in viture of clause 30 (B) of the award, the authority relied on for which is section 5 (1) of the Industrial Concilation and Arbitration Act (No. 2), 1937. “.Perusal of the sub-section which provides for the bringing under the award of persons who have not been parties to the proceedings makes it clear that it contemplates and is limited to disputes within one industrial district,” continues the court, “ in that it refers only to applications under section 41 of the principal Act under which district awards only are made. Secondly, it is equally clear that the sub-section contemplates only applications made by industrial unions or associations of workers. Dominion awards are made—indeed, can only bo made—under section 58 of the principal Act, and there is nothing in section 5 having any reference to the.section. Hence, this being a Dominion award, clause 30 (B) is unauthorised, and is ultra vires of the statute in virtue of which it purports to have been included. Accordingly, the defendant is not made a party to the award.” The court, therefore, found that the defendant had coramited no breach of the award, and dismissed the case.