"WHEN IS A UNIONIST NOT A UNIONIST."

Hutt News, Volume 2, Issue 44, 10 April 1930, Page 3

"WHEN IS A UNIONIST NOT A UNIONIST."

At the last sitting of the Magistrate's Court held at Lower Hutt on the 2nd inst., Cecil Porter Smith, being an inspector of Awards, Wellington, proceeded against H. S. Dudding of Ward Street, Lower Hutt, plumber, to recover the sum of £10 as a breach of The Wellington Conterbury Otago and Southland Plumbers' and: Gasfitters' Award dated the 24th November, 192 G. The following are particulars of the breach*alleged to have, been committed by tie defendant: —.

"That the defendant, did on the 29th October, 1929 engage a journeyman plumber, H. James, Vho is not a lnembei of the Workers' Union and did

fail within three days of such employment to give notice in writing of such employment to the "Secretary of the Workers' Union." ,

Mr; C. E. Barrett, who appeared for the defendant, Dudding> intimated that, he had arranged with the plaintiff for an admission of certain facts in order to avoid the calling of evidence and stated that it was common ground between the plaintiff ajad the defendant that James was a financial member of the Canterbury Union and that the defendant did not give notice" of such employment to the^ Secretary of the Wellington Plumbers' and Gasfitters' Union. Mr. Barrett contended -that the

Award was equivocal and ambiguous and contended that paragraph (c) of Clause 9 of the Award which reada as ! follows: " Whenever any employer shall employ any worker who is not a member of the WoTkers' Union, the employer !_ shall within three days of such employment give notice in writing of such I employment to the Secretary of the | Workers' Union did not enlighten the 1 employer as to the Union to ; which tie worker must belong and the-union to which the employer should give notice of the commencement of any employment.- The only definition of the phrase ''. the union given by the Award was set out. at the commencement of the Award wherein "The New Zealand Federated Plumbers and Gasfitters' Industrial Association of Workers (hereinafter called 'The Union)" was referred to. Mr. Barrett therefore contended that the phrase "the-Workers' Union" as set out in. paragraph (c) of Clause 9. of the Award either meant "The New Zealand Federated Plumbers and Gasfitters' Industrial Association of Workers" or any recognised Plumbers and Gasfitters' Union and not one

specific union such as the -Wellington Plumbers' .and Gasfitters' Union. These interpretations, Mr. Barrett, maintained, were justified on the one hand by the definition mentioned at the commencement of the Award and on the other hand by the fact that the word "workers" was spelt "workers' " and not "worker's". If such definitions were, upheld or were entitled to -foe'■■upheld on a construction of-Hhe Award, then as James, during his employment by Dudding, was a member of the Canterbury Plumbers'arid Gasfitters' Union,, which was affiliated to the New Zealand Federated Plumbers' and Gas-

fitters' Industrial Association of Workers, -and was therefore not a worker " who is not a member of the workers' union," the employer "(as 'he was not employing a non-unionist) was not under any obligation to give notice of the employment of James to the Sereetary of'any Union and accordingly the present prosecution must fail.

By a parity .of reasoning, Mr. Barrett submitted that, if his contention that the phrase "the workers,' union", meant any Tecognised union of plumbers arid gasfitters, the claim could not succeed as James was at the tinie of his' employment and at the date of the prosecution, a member of the Canterbury Plumbers' and Gasfitters ' Union. Mr. BaTre.tt maintained that the Award was very clumsily drawn, although it may have been ap-ropriatc to the circumstances prior to the making by the Arbitration Court of a Dominion Award instead of a Provincial Award.

i Mr. ,-G. P. Smith, for the Department, in replying to tbe contentions of counsel for the defendant, while admitting that the Awaid was clumsily drawn and not as clear as it mig&t have been, remarked that the paragraph in question had not been attacked by -counsel in the past. He submitted however, that the phrase "the workers'

union" in paragraph (c) must be construed to mean the Plumbers and Gasfitters' Union for the district /within which the worker is for the lime being employed.

In reply, although Mr. Barrett complimented the Inspector of Awards on tie very interesting address which, he had delivered upon the objects of the award, he (Mr. Barrett) contended that not only as the Inspector of Awards hail not answered any of the specific points raised by counsel for the defendant, but also that as whatever the A'rbirtation Court may have meant to have said had not by the Award been unequivocally set out, the prosecution 6'hould. not. succeed.

The Magistrate (Mr. W. H. Wood-

ward, S.M.) considered that, wMle the Award was not as clear as it might havo been, paragraph (c) should be construed with the balance of. clause 9 relative to the maintaining of preference to unionists and stated that in his opinion he must convict the defendant.