FREEZING DISPUTE

Wairarapa Age, 16 February 1927, Page 5

FREEZING DISPUTE

THE ARBITRATION HEARING. AN ALLEGED STBIKE. EVIDENCE AND COMMON KNOWLEDGE. WELLINGTON, February 15. • In the freezing workers’ dispute, continued before the Arbitration Court to-day, the employers combated the workers’ claim that 12s should be substituted for 8s in the minimum wage clause. Mr. Sanderson, for the employers, asked that the Court restore the 1924 rates. Mr. Sanderson asked the Court whe« ther it wished to hear evidence regarding the refusal of the men to engage in work, or in regard to strikes. Mr. Sill (workers’ representative) asked whether Mr. Sanderson was not indicting the union in tho eyes of the Court in a matter in which it had. no jurisdiction. Mr. Justice Frazer: “We ean only deal with the preference clause. Officially, as a Court, we do not know anything of the circumstances of the oc-

currences of last year except what we read in the newspapers er whether that can be taken as correct. There is something from each side and the statements do not tally. We as a Court cannot assume any judicial knowledge of that. Th'e definition of 1 strike* implies cessation of work. Mere combination is not a strike.”

Mr. Sanderson: “I am not particularly stressing that it was a strike, but that- it had- the same effect as a strike.”

His Honour: “No doubt, but 'strike* is a d«?fined term, and tho Court cannot say that any union has been guilty of a strike unless the facts brought the occurrences within the definition of a strike.” Mr. Sanderson - : “I submit that the Court cannot ignore the- inferences that these men 1 refused engagement.**

His Honour: “The Court ean draw an inference that there is war from th© newspapers,, but I do not think the Court can take- judicial knowledge of what is an industrial offence without confirmation. The offence must be proved. Ab ordinary members of the community wo know that there were disturbances in November last, but I do not know that wo can assume from that knowledge that the union has committed an offence. There is a difference between a number of men taking a wrong course and a union taking that course. You ask ub ta aseume that some breach of the award took place 'last November without any evidence at all.”

Mr. Sanderson:: “I wish chiefly to point out: the advisability of deleting the preference if mot the whole of it at least those portions affecting the feezing industry anil learners.** His Honour: “You have the right, if the union has assisted in a strike, or encouraged a strike, or done anything in the way of concerteil action to defeat terms of the award, to claim the deletion of the preference clause.**

Mr. Sanderson said he would call what evidence he had. Evidence was called by Mr. Sanderson to prove that tallies had been restricted by the workers so that while fast men could finish their tallies- at 4k!5 p.m., slow men could finish tho samo tally at 5 p.m.— (P.A.).