NO AWARD MADE. DECISION OF THE COURT.

Maoriland Worker, Volume 1, Issue 4, 15 December 1910, Page 4

NO AWARD MADE. DECISION OF THE COURT.

DECISION OF THE COURT. His Honor Mr Justice Sim gave judgment at the Arbitration Court on Tuesday, November 29, in the matter of the dispute between the Canterbury Shearers' Industrial Union *of Workers (Mr M. Laracy) and the Canterbury Sheepowners , Industrial Union of Employers (Mr Pry or). His Honor said :— " The first question to be determined is whether the Court has jurisdiction to malf an award in the present case. The jurisdiction conferred on the Court is tor the settlement and determination of industrial disputes referred to it under the provisions of the Act. Before the Court is entitled to make an award there must be an industrial dispute as defined by the Act, and that dispute must have been referred to the Court for settlement in the prescribed manner. In the month of June, 1910, the Shearers' Union made an application in the prescribed form to have an industrial dispute between itself and the Sheepowners' Union heard by the Council of Conciliation. The dispute related to the wages and other conditions of work of shed hands employed during shearing. The application is dated June 14, 1910, and was filed on June 28, 1910. Before this application ■was filed the Shearers' Union had not made any demands on the Sheepowners' Union in connection with ehed hands, and there had not been any communication of any kind between the two Unions on the subject of shed hands. It seems clear that in these circumstances there was no dispute arising directly between the parties when the application was filed by the Shearers' Union. It is claimed, however, that the communication between the New Zealand Shearers' and Woolshed Employees' Industrial Association of Workers and the New Zealand Shipowners' Federation had the effect of creating a dispute between the Shearers' Union, which is one of the Unions forming the Association, and the Sheepowners' Union, which is a member of the Federation. These communications began with a letter written on April 14, 1910, by the secretary of the Association to the Federation. The Association was not registered under the Act until May 28, 1910, and the Federation has not been registered under the Act. It may be the case that the Association, although not registered, had power, on behalf of the several Unions composing it, to make demands on employers with regard to shearers and shed hands, but there is nothing before the Court to show that the Federation had any authority to deal with such demand an behalf of the Sheepowners' Union so as to create an industrial dispute between the Shearers.' Union and the Sheepowners' Union by refusing to accede to such demands. The position, therefore, is that when the application was filed in June there was no industrial dispute arising directly between the Shearers' Union and the Sheepowners' Union, and there is no evidence that any other body had authority from the Sheepowners' Union to originate on its behalf an industrial dispute with the Shearers' Union. It is true that there is now an industrial dispute between the two Unions, but that is not sufficient to give the Court jurisdiction. Before the Court can acquire jurisdiction to make an award it must be clear that there was an industrial dispute in existence between the two Unions at the date when the application was filed. The Shearers Union has failed to prove that there was any such dispute in existence, and the Court has no jurisdiction to make an award. The defect is one which cannot be cured under any of the provisions of the Act relating to the amendment of proceedings. Those provisions do not enable the Court to confer jurisdiction on itself to make an award in any case when that jurisdiction does not already exist. The application for an award must therefore be dismissed." . His Honor: That is the judgment, and Mr M'Cullough desires mc to add that he does not concur in it. Mr Laracy: Would you mind informing mc, your Honor, if the take the evidence already given in this case and give a decision upon it, provided we now create a formal dispute as your Honor may direct? His Honor: I think we would have to get the consent of the other side to that, but I have no doubt they would be very glad to agree to such an arrangement. The Court would have no objection to what you suggest if you can get the other side to consent. Mr Laracy: And where would I get the information as to what does constitute a dispute? It is not in the Act. His Honor: The decision in the Bannockburn Collieries case will show you what is necessary. Mr Laracy: But it is not in the Act, is it?

His Honor: You will get all the information you want from the reading of that case.

TO THE EDITOR " LYTTELTON TIMES." Sir, —After many weary months of strife and disputing, the case for the shearing-shed hands came before that mighty tribunal, the Arbitration Court. With what result? The shed hands are told that "there is no dispute." The first objection raised was that the reference was not filed under the proper name of the Union. That objection collapsed, and the Union's actions were found to be in perfect order in the circumstances. Then it was alleged that a ballot of the members had not been taken in accordance with, the Act. This allegation also broke down. Then it became necessary to cast around for another way of depriving the shed hands of their just right to an award, and the plea was put up that, in spite of a letter of April 14, "no dispute existed." when the Union filed its reference ; and this was a farcical excuse made by the Court for throwing out the case —-that no dispute existed. As a fact, of course, the workers concerned, the employers concerned, and practically every person in New Zealand knew that a dispute had existed for many months. When the employers filed their case against the shearers they took the same form of procedure as the Union adopted ; that is, they filed their demands without notifying the Union of the existence of a, dispute—the filing of the demands itself, by all laws of commonsense, is an absolute demonstration of the existence of a dispute. If it is not, what right has the Court to listen to any evidence at all without first assuring itself that it is entitled to hear and adjudicate upon such evidence ? I maintain that this case shows in the clearest possible manner (1) that the Union has complied with the Act in all possible ways, and (2) that the plea on which we have been thrown out has been merely trumped up for the purpose of avoiding a straight-out denial of an award to country workers. If the Arbitration Court is to depend on such foolish technicalities as the " no dispute " argument, then the sooner it is wiped out of existence the better for the workers of NeAV Zealand as a whole.—l am, etc., *M. LARACY. Christchurch, 29/11/10.