LABOUR CALLS

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12610, 22 November 1926, Page 7

LABOUR CALLS

AND RIGHTS OF UNIONISTS

PUZZLE FOR THE ARBITRATION COURT INTERPRETATION WANTED Per Press Association. AUCKLAND, November 20. With a view to obtaining an interpretation of a clause in the W aterside Workers’ Award, an action was brought against Leonard and Dingley, Ltd., stevedores, of Auokland, in the Arbitration Court this morning by the Inspector of Awards. Nominally the plaintiff claimed to recover from the defendant the sum of £lO as a penalty for a breach of the On hearing the circumstances, Mr Justice Frazer said that the question of penalty was not really at issue, as he understood that the parties desired an interpretation. The facts, which were admitted, were that the defendant company on September 14th employed two non-union workers on work coming within the scope of the ward and failed to permit them to continue working till work ceased for that day. TOOK ON NON-UNIONISTS The inspector (Air F. F. Grieve) said that a call was made for labour, and there being insufficient unionists offering the non-unionists were employed. On the following day, without making a call, the same men were allowed to start work on the job, but later in the morning, unionists offering their services, the non-unionists were put off and members of the union were put on in their place. Air Lowrie, who represented the defendants. explained that 011 the second day there was a call for incidental labour,' and as unionists did not respond it was thought futile to call a second time for labour for the job on which the non-unionists had been employed on the previous day. When on the second day the unionists offered their services at about 9 a.m. the non-unionists were discharged in order that unionists might bo employed. The defendants had acted under the misconception that they were compelled to employ unionists. Properly, the non-unionists, having once been starti were entitled to continue until the end of the day or till .work was finished on that day. "A FULL DAY’S PAY” “The point is that, whether employed rightly or wrongly in the first place, once started these non-unionists were entitled to a full day s j;a>, said his Honour. After considering the matter, the court decided that the question was complicated by the further quesion as to what would have happened had a call been made. Although it was possible that the court could answer the immediate question without reference to the rights of unionists under the preference clause, it was felt that without dealing with other matters somewhat intricately mixed up with it- the court might lay iself open to misunderstanding. , . ~ , Mr Justice Frazer suggested that the inspector, the union, and the employers should make a joint application for an interpretation on the basis of questions relating to tho calf. Should it have been made on the second day and what form should it have taken?' The further question at issue in the present case could be added. It was resolved to follow this course.