IMPORTANT CASE.

Hokitika Guardian, 19 October 1923, Page 1

IMPORTANT CASE.

.MOTION TO QUASH AWARD. [by TELEGRAM —PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON, Oct. 18. The Supreme Court (lull bench) commenced this morning the hearing or argument in the case of the New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Federation and tile Industrial Association of Workers v. Eranees Vernon Frazer and other members of the Court of Arbitration. This was a motion for a writ of prohibition against tho Arbitration Court preventing it from enforcing the Award dated November 17, 1922, upon the ■ground that certain of its provisions were in excess of the jurisdiction of the Court.

Mr P. .1. O’Rcgan appeared for (he plaintiff.,, ami Mr (.'. P. Skerrott. K. C. and with him, Mr .1. F. 13. Stevenson, for the defendants. When tho ease was called, Justice Salmond said it appeared that the proper procedure was not by way of application for a writ of prohibition, hut by a writ of certiorari to quash the award.

By an agreement of counsel, the proceedings were amended by the adding of an alternative motion for a writ of cert ioran. The main ground of attack oil the award was in relation to Clauses 2(5 (n't. (b), and (c) and Clauses !(> (a) and (h) of the award, in so far a= these clauses purported to impose upon the workers a bond, and thereby, an obligation of standing by pending employment. These provisions, it wax

contended, were in excess of the jurisdiction conferred on the Arbitration Court, because il) the jurisdiction of the Court was limited to questions arising during tho time that tho relation of master and servant existed ; (2) the workers employed by the award were employed casually and by the hour ; (3) the relation of master and servant did not exist until the workers were actually engaged. Mr Skorrett. for the defendants, raised a preliminary objection that the Supreme Court had no power to deal with the motion. The Arbitration Court had properly entered on the enquiry into an industrial dispute, and ils award on such a mm ter was, he said, made by statute, and was not reviewable by the Supreme Court, or by an.- other court.

-Mi' O'ltegan, for tho plaintiffs’ fedoration, in dealing with tin’s preliminary point, said that tlie Supreme Courthad power to prohibit the Arbitration Court or to quash its award if tho Arbitration Court exceeded the jurisdiction given it by the statute, which set up the Court of Arbitration. The argument is proceeding.