APPLICATION REFUSED

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 220, 17 August 1937, Page 2

APPLICATION REFUSED

HAWKE’S BAY UNION

NOTICES NOT POSTED,

Further reference to a dispute between unions was made in the Arbitration Court, yesterday, when the hearing was continued of the application. partheard on Friday, of the Hawke’s Bay Builders’ and General Labourers’ Union for ratification of an agreement as an award. The AVellington District Labourers’ and Related Trades Industrial Union of AVorkers contended that the former body 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. His Honour Mr Justice O’Regan presided, with him as assessors being Messrs AV. Cecil Prime (employers’ representative) and A. L. Monteith (employees’ representative). Mr R. J. Reardon submitted that on the irregularity or otherwise of the application Mr Butler, for the AYellington union, had no standing in the Court. Mr -Reardon proceeded to outline the steps taken. Evidence was given by Messrs RB. Bellerby (formerly secretary of the Hawke’s Bay union) and J. B. Atkinson (the president). His Honour suggested that as it appeared that the sitting might be late, it being then late afternoon, an adjournment be taken. On the Court’s resumption, His Honour said the members of the Court had made up their minds about the case. They regretted very much haying come to the conclusion —a conclusion that was unavoidable in this ease. The Court felt it unnecessary to give a written judgment, because it was very busy and the legal position was quite clear. It was very unfortunate and a matter for regret that the agreement had been anoroved bv local bodies and by the 183 members of the union. An agreement could not give the Court justification for making an award when an Act of Parliament had not been complied with. Notices of a meeting to be held for the purpose of formulating proposals for an award had not been sent by post. The Act stated: “Notice of the proposals to be submitted to the meeting shall he posted to the members.” Tt was quite obvious that the then secretary had realised that all the members should be notified, and lie had explained that it had not been possible because of the lack of a complete register of the members. However. the Statute was most explicit and the Court had no power to alter it. That meeting had been invalid, and the position had ptobahlv been brought about bv a succession of secretaries which the union had had. The union had “swapped horses” in midstream several times. There had been “leaks in the boat” before Mr Reardon had fiken her over. In the circumstances the Court, had no right to waste the of the country further. The application was then dismissed.

AYITHDRAAYAL OF SUBMISSION.

ADVOCATE'S EXPLANATION

Directions as to what should he done were requested of the Arbitration Court, at a sitting in Palmerston North yesterday, by Mr R. J. Reardon, who appeared for the Hawke’s Bay Builders and General Labourers’ Union when he drew attention to the following paragraph which had appeared in a newspaper on Saturday:—“Mr Butler . . . said that local bodies in Hawke’s Bay joined with the Hawke’s, Bay Union in an attempt'to prevent a settlement being reached in the AVellington dispute. There were indications pointing to a conspiracy between the employers in Hawke’s Bay and the Hawke’s Bay Union to prevent the AVellington settlement being applicable in that area.”

That statement had not been made in Court, said Mr Reardon, and he submitted it was not privileged. His Honour Mr Justice O’Regan remarked that the report had been telegraphed “Press Association.” Mr Reardon dia not know that the union could take any action at all. Mr P. M. Butler, for the Wellington District Industrial Labourers’ and Related Trades Industrial Union of Workers, had withdrawn the fourth heading of his submissions and that .sentence had been in the fourth paragraph. Mr Butler said he hoped that Mr Reardon was not inferring that he had been responsible for the reference. His Honour said Pressmen might have seen the submissions before that one was withdrawn, and Mr Butler explained that he had followed the usual procedure of having prepared three copies of his submissions for the Court, one for the “other side” in the dispute, one for the Press, and one for himself. One copy had been given to the Press in the usual manner. He did not wish the Court to think That there had been anything sinister about the matter. His Honour: I do not think there is.

The submissions referred to in the above were handed to the pressmen in Court'and published in good faith as matter to be addressed to tlie Bench.