DIFFERENCE IN COURT

Wairarapa Times-Age, 16 November 1938, Page 5

DIFFERENCE IN COURT

AT ARBITRATION HEARING EMPLOYEES’ REPRESENTATIVE WALKS OUT. AN INDICATED PROTEST. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) AUCKLAND, November 15. The unusual course of leaving the Bench during the hearing of a case as a protest against alleged incorrect procedure was taken by Mr A. L. Monteith, employees’ member of the Court of Arbitration, during a sitting of the Court this morning. Mr Monteith remained absent from the Court for the remainder of the hearing, which concluded during the afternoon. The incident occurred soon after the Court had begun to hear ■an application from the Auckland Houses of Entertainment and Places of Amusement Employees’ Union for a new award covering the northern industrial district. Members of the union comprise cleaners, caretakers, ticket-sell-ers, doorkeepers, and ushers. The case was the last of a long list heard in Auckland since August 4. At the beginning Mr Anderson, advocate for the employers, asked to be permitted to make a statement about the application. He said that at an earlier date both parties had agreed that the dispute should be heard in Conciliation Coun'cil in Wellington in conjunction with a dispute affecting employees in Taranaki, Wellington, Nelson, Marlborough and Canterbury. Those proceedings had' been held and delegates from Auckland, representing employers and employees, had been present. Complete agreement had been reachd and Mr Anderson said he had understood that the Auckland award would consequently be based on that agreement. As he did not wish to waste further time on the matter, he desired to state the employers’ case and then leave the Court. Mr Monteith said that the advocate xfor the employees had the right to speak first as representing the applicants for the award. What Mr Anderson proposed was contrary to. the usual procedure. Mr Justice O’Regan permitted Mr Anderson to proceed, but he had just begun to speak when Mr Monteith left the Court, indicating that he would remain absent for the rest of the day as a mark of protest. In spite of Mr Monteith’s absence, Mr Justice O’Regan and the employers’ representative, Mr A. L. Prime, continued the case, this being permissible under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, which states that a quorum consists of two members. The hearing concluded during the. afternoon, when the Court reserved its decision. At the midday adjournment of the Court neither Mr Justice O’Regan nor Mr Prime would comment on the matter. A similar attitude was adopted by Mr Monteith when he was interviewed. When asked whether he intended to rejoin the Court in Hamilton when it opens a brief session there tomorrow, he said he was not certain. Mi Monteith was a passenger by the Limited express tonight.