FLAX DISPUTE.

Shannon News, 30 November 1928, Page 3

FLAX DISPUTE.

CLAIM FOR PENALTY DISMISSED

For an alleged breach of the Wellington industrial district fiaxmills emplovees’ award, the ManaAA T atu Flaxmills Employees’ Unio/n proceeded against C. H. Spiers, of Foxton, in tlie .Magistrate’s Court at Palmerston, claiming a £lO penalty. It Avas alleged that defendant had failed to pay an employee the aAvard rate of Avages between certain dates in October, 1928. Mr Bromlev ai>pearcd for the union and Mr Bergin (Foxton) for defendant.

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

“That avo, representing flaxmill owners and flaxmill employees, agree to the settlement of the present dispute obtaining in the, industry on the folloAving basis: (1) A A\ r age reduction of 10 per cent, on present aAvard Avages, based on an average A r alue of flax. (2; The wage to be increased Avhen flax reaches the average prices of £27 10s. It is agreed that an investigation shall be made into the trading accounts of last year's balance sheets by the 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 the Avorktrs had agreed to accept a ten per cent, reduction until the price of liemp reached £27 10s' per ton. Both parties had clearly understood that this Avas to be the case. He AA r ould admit that, oAving to legal technicalities, the agreement setting out the reduction Avas not cnforciblo in luav, but the millers’ action in adopting the suggestion had been fully excusable in vlcav of the fact that, the Prime Minister had been instrumental in having it drawn up to -prevent a dead-lock. While ignorance of the bnv was no excuse, the millers’ action in accepting the agreement was not applicable in this ease. No breach had been committed by the millers acting upon this agreement, and it was significant that, so far, none of the Avorkcrs had claimed the 10 per cent, difference in wages. He Avould say that His Worship Avould be justified in dismissing the claim, on the grounds that the millers' action in making the reduction under the agreement had been fully excusable. Tne Labour Department had lefused to take action in the matter.

Mr Bromley said that the Prime Minister, in reporting to the House on 1 September 4, had said that tlie: agreement, was only tentative and Avould be further considered later. .Mr Stout said that he could not read anything into the agreement, but could onhy go by Avhat was set out. Mr Bromley then contended . that, under the circumstances, Ilis Worship should rule that the agreement Avas illegally drawn up and that the aAvard rates of wages should, therefore, haA r e been paid during the whole period. • Mr Stout stated that, in his opinion, that action did not come Avithin the province of the present, ease. If the employees commenced further proceedings they might be able to obtain award wages throughout the whole period of the dispute, but that avhs not for him to say at the present time. In this case, the union Avas attempting to penalise a miller for carrying, out a. reduction in accordance Avith the agreement, The Arbitration Court had told the employees that they could obtain reward Avage3 from October 12, and he did not, therefore, think that in the present ease he would impose any penalty on the miller. His action, under the wording of the agreement, had been excusable. The claim was dismissed.