UNIONS IN CONFLICT

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 217, 13 August 1937, Page 7

UNIONS IN CONFLICT

APPLICATION FOR AWARD. QUESTION OF JURISDICTION. Contending that the Hawke’s Bay Builders’ and General Labourers’ Union had no authority to enter an agreement for the settlement of a dispute, had not complied with the requirements of the Act, and had no jurisdiction, the Wellington Industrial District Labourers’ and Related. Trades Industrial Onion of Workers was in conflict with tne former organisation in a case of an unusual nature which came belore the Arbitration Court at Palmerston North to-da.y. His Honour Mr Justice O’Regan presided, with him as assessors being Messrs W. Cecil Prime (employers’ representative) and A. L. Monteith (employees’ representative).

it was announced by Mr R. J. Reardon, who appeared for the Hawke’s Bay union, that it had reached a complete settlement with the employers in Conciliation Council, and he applied tor the ratification of this by the framing of an award in those terms. There was a preliminary formality to the proceedings when Mr S. I. McKenzie signified that the Napier Harbour

Board, being bound by another agreement. objected to being joined as a party to the award. It was decided to hold'this matter over in the meantime and deal with it at Napier. His Honour commented that the Arbitration Act placed restrictions on the multiplicity of unions, but it was a curious thing that both those in the case before the Court were registered. His Honour was informed that the Hawke’s Bay body was originally an. offshoot of the Wellington union. ' GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION. Opposition by the Wellington Union to the granting of an award was ex-

pressed by Mr P. Butler, who appeared on their behalf, on the following four principal grounds: (1) That the applicant union (that is, the Hawke’s Bay Builders and General Labourers Union), is not legally competent, by virtue of its rules, to originate a dispute of the nature now before the Court. (2) That the dispute was not properly referred to a Council of Conciliation in accordance with the provisions of the Act. (3) That we are of the opinion that the citations were in conflict with the intention and spirit of. the Act, and that the resultant recommendations of the Council are null and void. (4) That the recommendations of the Council are against the interests of the workers, and are apparently the result of a conspiracy to deprive the workers of reasonable rates of wages and conditions of employment. “The recommendations now before the Court, if ma.de into an award, will deprive the workers in the area concerned of the benefits of a more beneficial settlement,” submitted Mr Butler. “The Wellington union carries in its rules the power to apply for and obtain awards on behalf of local bodies’ labourers. The applicant union has not that authority. The Wellington Union on June 20 met the employers representing local bodies, and arrived at a complete settlement of all matters in dispute. In this case only local bodies in the Wellington industrial district were cited, and the statement of claim was set out in order that the needs of the local bodies and of the workers concerned would be met. The settlement in the Wellington district case is in many respects better in wages and conditions than the recommendations now before the Court, brought by the Hawke’s Bay appli cants. “The local bodies in the Hawke s Bay district,” continued Mr Butler, “joined with the Hawke’s Bay union in an attempt to prevent a settlement being arrived at in the Wellington district case. It was obvious to the local bodies in the Hawke’s Bay area that the Wellington District Union had a better opportunity of getting better wages and conditions than they had agreed to in the alleged dispute now in question. “GATE-CRASHING METHODS.” “During the currency of, or immediately preceding, the Conciliation Council proceedings in the Wellington District Local Bodies’ Labourers’ Award, the employers and the union tried to rush the Court at Christchurch in order to transform the present recommendations into an award. The following telegram was sent by Mr R. J. Reardon, agent for the applicants, to the Court at Christchurch: ‘lnstructed to apply Christchurch Monday next to convert Hawke's Bay Local Bodies’ Labourers’ recommendations into award. Will you please arrange to have papers on hand. Employers consenting.’ “The workers of the Hawke s Bay area are indebted to the Court for not acceding to this ‘gate-crashing’ method of foisting an alleged agreement upon them. We do not think it necessary to take up the time of thg Court in alluding to the other indications which point to the conspiracy of the local bodies in Hawke’s Bay in conjunction with these alleged representatives ot the workers to prevent the Wellington district settlement being made applicable to the Hawke’s Bay area. _We ask the Court to compare our union s settlement with that in the Hawke s Bay district case, and it will be obvious whv the employers do earnestly desire the ratification of this present settlement. We submit that this and other Courts have consistently held that where, by any reason, a dispute bas not b°en properlv and duly referred to a Council of Conciliation, the Court has no jurisdiction to make an award. This is not a formality, nor a technicality. Tt is an essential matter which must be dulv carried out in accordance with the clearly expressed intention and direction of the lecislation. Any departure from this is fatal. Numerous cases were, cited bv Mr Butler in support of his argument. HAWKE’S BAY ATTITUDE.

For the Hawke’s Bay union, Mr Reardon said its registration was named in such a way as to suggest the limitation of its area to the Hawke s Bay district. The employers cited and the Napier and Hastings Councils had already loyally observed the terms of the recommendation so far as wages were concerned, and the union wanted to fulfil its obligation by having them converted into an award. The Wellington General Labourers’ Industrial Union of Workers was formed in 1900. and its registration included the province of Hawke’s Bay. the first award obtained in 1907 was limited in its operation to an area 20 miles from Wellington, but in 1908 + ’<? union extended its operations to include Hawke’s Bay and of her parts. Following the strike in 1910. the Wellington Builders’ and Labourers Union went out of existence, and an application was made to the department to amend the title of the Wellington Genenl Labourers’ Union to include budding trade labourers, and this union continued to secure awards and make a'’■’•cements with local borbeh until 1921 „nd. after the Hawke s memi,.,a in 1922 expressed a desire to manage, their own union affairs, re-

gistration was applied for and granted the Hawke’s Bay Builders’ and General Labourers’ Industrial Union of Workers, with the consent and assistance of the parent body in Wellington. That union had since exercised its rights in the provincial district of Hawke’s Bay, there being a complete agreement with the local bodies at present. “We submit,” stated Mr Reardon “that the Court of Arbitration should not refuse to make an award, except for grave reasons. Section 153 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1925, gives power to the Court to refuse to make an award in certain circumstances, but every case decided under this section has revealed grave irregularities or good and sufficient reason. No such reasons can be put forward in this case, since the parties who applied for the award are both in agreement on the matter. Up to the present the only dissenter has been Mr Butler, who is not a party to the recommendation now before the Court which, as a matter of public policy’ should make an award to save the Hawke’s Bay members o the union from the humiliation of .being charged with l > reach of , falth 111 the matter of this recommendation. Continuing, Mr Reardon said that 183 local body employees were affected bv the dispute, and 140 had petitioned for an early settlement and ftn award under the Hawke’s Bay union, as they did not wish to be forced into any other. Confining . his argument to the validity of his union’s rules Mr Reardon asked for an adjournment of the proceedings until Monday to bfe him to prepare a case to combat le"al arguments, not anticipated which bad been advanced by the opp“ij:BE«”Vri «•' 1!e? ,i; iiw fXNmI .i’ould b.v. l»d hi. * r K^. P X3v.n by Francis John Conwav and Charles Horace Jennings, former secretaries of the Hawke s Bay "proceedings were then adjourned tintil 215 n.m. 011 Monday, when the hooks of* the Hawke’s Bay union are to be produced,