WATERSIDERS’ AWARD

Taranaki Daily News, 22 November 1926, Page 9

WATERSIDERS’ AWARD

INTERPRETATION TO BE SOUGHT. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Auckland, Nov. 20. An interesting point regarding the employment of non-unionists was raised in the Arbitration Court in an action brought against Messrs Leonard and Dingley, Ltd., stevedores, by the Inspector of Awards as nominal plaintiff. He claimed as such to recover from the defendants £lO, as a penalty for an alleged breach of the waterside workers’ award. On hearing the circumstances Mr. Justice Frazer said the question of a penalty was not really at issue, as he understood the parties merely desired an interpretation. The facts, which were admitted, were that the defendant company, on September 14, 1926, employed two men non-union workers on work coming within the scope of the award and failed to permit them to continue working till work ceased for that day. Inspector F. F. Grieve said 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, on unionists offering their servises, the non-unionists were put off and the members of the union were put on in their place. "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 pay,” said Hie Honour. After considering the matter, the court decided that the question was complicated by the further question 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 itself 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 the questions relating to a call, i.e., 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.