ARBITRATION COURT.

Hokitika Guardian, 18 October 1923, Page 4

ARBITRATION COURT.

lb HI i' TRADE Dl.Si'l i IL 1 t» V TM.CCC.U’II -I'iK. I'l.'l.ss ASUOI'IATtON.] \V El ,!.)N< IT (I.N. 01. Hi. I u a meinorundum t o t in- At hit rat ion Court’s award in tin- Xcv. /rn'lr.iid r - derated Boo! Ttath- disiiute tiled (oday. .Air Justice Frazer said that tiie prim tjia! matter r-. i.-i n-i to th ( „urt was clash,cai ion <•: operation.-', whi .i had been agreed to in the -t hefore Hie (oneiliation Council. In view of the importance nl' having a sdietiie ct classification theruagldy investigated, the Court had hesitated 6. adopt th-- • e.iployers' s. la-nn.-. the only otu- -u , i.nit t*e*!

ti it. and for that reason had renewed, with a leu amendments, the , xc-ttn : award. The Court is -ali-liti! that the hoot mauiilaet tn iug industry was tintf ' which classilicaliun cuuld lie aiplic!, and ter tli.it, reason, had made (he ti nu ol (la- award one year onlv. If the parties were unable to agree on a .-rheme

before the expiry of the award, the Court would probably end.oily an a; biliary scheme in the next award. ’('!:■• Court had .substituted a disputes committee for tile former board of control, a. the powers piopused for ilie latter were ultra vires. The Coart had not dealt with pieio work, as it vis open lor an employer to agree with Ids workers on any system cl payment so long the minimum wages were paid. NEWSPAPER CTIAIKJED. WELLINGTON. (hi. I(J. The Inspector of Eai lories took ait ion to-day in the Arbitration Court .against the proprietors of the “Evening Post’’ for the publication of letters lunching a matter which was subjudiee. in a conciliation case. li was alleged that defendants published on .Inly L’.lili. last, an anonymous letter signed ‘Awaliuri.” which was calculated to preiudically alt'ect the hotel and restaurant workers' and employers’ J dispute', then under consideration by , the Conciliation Council I .Mr Fair, lor the t rowai. sail! liiai j the action was brought in order to draw j attention to the s;rnpuiou> care that ! must be exorcised in the publication of ' letters hearing upon a case under cun- | sider.ation by tile Arbitration Court t r j Conciliation Council. The olfeiue was admitted by tie foil- 1 (hints, who were represented by Mr O'Leary, who said the ofi'eu e v-ais not j not deliberate, but an act of omission, j The “Post. - ’ endeavoured to b • s rnp-a-lotisly fair, especially in its dealings ' w it h industrial matters. Mr Ea.id admitted iha'. tin 1 ' Post | hod a reputation tor aeciitacy ami :ai ' i dealing. .Mr J list ice Piai'er -aid that although ; the Conciliation Council was ailected prejudicially by the pul .■ltealmn of the letter, the Court absolved the news-- ,

paper irom any suggestion tiiat n m printed with deliberate iutention. Ihe case was only the second ol its kind under the Act. and he appreciated the difficulty in discriminating between a matter of legitimate comment and one which might have n bearing upon a case before the Coart, or Conned. Uc paid a tribute to the ‘'livening Post s Reputation for fair dealing and impai tialitv. The present proceedings were more in tb.e naiure of a warning, and a reminder of the existence of a section of the Act. Defendants were ordered to pav the costs ot the prosecution, throe guineas.