TRAWLERS’ DISPUTE

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 940, 5 April 1930, Page 16

TRAWLERS’ DISPUTE

APPEAL COURT’S DECISION j Press Association WELLINGTON, Friday. Judgment was given in the Court of Appeal today in the case of the Federated Seamen’s Union of New Zealand (trawlers’ section) and Sanford, Ltd., fish merchants, of Auckland. The question at issue was whether the Arbitration. Court had jurisdiction to include certain clauses in the award. The principal clause was clause 24 (C) of the recommendations of the Conciliation Council, by which the dispute was originally heard. The clause provided that should there not be a sufficient number of union members available when required by the employers, the latter might engage other men, conditional on their becoming and remaining members of the union during the currency of their employment. The effect of the judgment is that only sub-clause (E) of clause 24 of the recommendations of the Conciliation Council were within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court, and could be included in its award. In his judgment the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, held that subclause (F) could not be justified, because the entrance fee was in excess of the entrance fee permitted to be charged by the Arbitration Act, and, further, that the other sub-clauses, except sub-clause (E), stood and fell together. He regarded that they had already been concluded by decisions of the court in previous cases, and that there was no power in the Court of Arbitration to give preference to members of the union over other members of the same union. The other Judges of the court concurred with the judgment of the Chief Justice. There was no order as to costs.