FLAX DISPUTE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 3877, 29 November 1928, Page 3

FLAX DISPUTE.

ACTION BY UNION AGAINST LOCAL MILLER. CLAIM FOR PENALTY DISMISSED. For an alleged breach of tho Wellington industrial district flaxmills employees’ award, the Manawatu Flaxmills Employees’ Union proceeded against C. H. Speirs, of Shannon, in the Palmerston North Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday, claiming a £lO penalty. It was alleged that defendant had failed to pay an employee the award rate of wages between October 12 and 10, 1928.

Mr. Bromley appeared for the union and Mr. Bergin (Foxton) for defendant.

Mr. Bromley detailed the meetings between the employers and employees in connection with the recent dispute and stated that an agreement’ had been made when the Prime Minister had convened a meeting. The agreement, however, was illegal and; would be unenforeiable in law. It had been understood that it was only tentative and not at all permanent. He submitted that the union was entitled to the claim under the Arbitration Act. The agreement reached had been as follows: —

“That we, representing flaxmill owners and flaxmill employees, agree to the settlement of the present dispute obtaining in the industry on the following basis: (1) A wage reduction of 10 per cent, on present award wages, based on an average value ’ of flax. (2) The wage to be increased when flax reaches the average price of £27 10/It is agreed that an investigation shall be made into the trading accounts of last year’s balance sheets by tho Department of Industries ■and Commerce, and that the position regarding a sliding scale of wages shall be reviewed after the investigation has been completed.” 'Mr. Bergin submitted that tho workers had agreed to accept a ten per cent, reduction until the price of hemp reached £27 10/per ton. Both parties had clearly understood that this was to be the case. He would admit that, owing to legal technicalities, the agreement setting out the reduction was not enforcible in law, but the millers’ action in adopting the suggestion had been fully excusable in view of the fact that the Prime Minister had been instrumental in having it drawn up to prevent a deadlock. While ignorance of the law w T as no excuse, the millers’ action in accepting the agreement was not applicable in this case. No breach had been committed by the millers acting upon this agreement, and it was significant that, so far, none of the workers had claimed the 10 per cent, difference in wages. He would say that His Worship would be justified in dismissing the claim, on the grounds that the mil* lers’ action in making the reduction under the agreement had been fully excusable. The Labour Department had refused to. take action in the matter. Mr. Bromley said that the Prime Minister, in reporting to the House on September 4, had said that the agreement was only tentative and would be further considered later. Mr. Stout said that he could not read anything into the agreement, but could only go by what was set out.

Mr. Bromley then contended that, under the circumstances, His Worship should rule that the agreement was illegally drawn up and that the award rates of wages should, therefore, have been paid during the whole period. Mr. Stout stated that, in his opinion, that action did not come ; within the province of the present case. If the employees commenced further proceedings they might be able to obtain award wages throughout the whole period of the dispute, but that was not for him to say at the present time. In this ease, the union was attempting to penajise a miller for carrying out a reduction in accordance with the agreement. The Arbitration Court had told the employees that they could obtain award wages from October 12, and he did not, therefore, think that in the present case he would impose any penalty on the miller. His action, under the wording of the agreement, bad been excusable. The claim was dismissed.