LEGISLATURE’S OMISSION
ARBITRATION AMENDMENT TERMS INAPPLICABLE (Per Press Association.) AUCKLAND, 'this day. By a curious oversight on the part of the Legislature, the blanket provisions ordained by Section 5 (1) of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act (No. 2) 1937, are inapplicable to Dominion awards, states the Arbitration Court in a judgment. The case was one heard in New Plymouth oil 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. Dominion Award
The award is a Dominion one. 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 virtue of clause 30 (B) of the award, the authority relied on for which is Section 5 (1) of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act (No. 2), 1937.
■'A perusal of the sub-section,, which provides for bringing under an award persons who have not been parties to the proceedings, makes ft 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 of associations of workers. Dominion awards are made, and indeed, can only be made under section 58 of the principal Act and there is nothing in Section 5 having any reference to 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 committed no breach of the award and dismissed the case
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GISH19390928.2.32
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20054, 28 September 1939, Page 4
Word count
Tapeke kupu
379LEGISLATURE’S OMISSION Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20054, 28 September 1939, Page 4
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
The Gisborne Herald Company is the copyright owner for the Gisborne Herald. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of the Gisborne Herald Company. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in