COURT OF APPEAL.

Waikato Times, Volume 107, Issue 17979, 26 March 1930, Page 8

COURT OF APPEAL.

DISPUTE WITH UNION. IYSATTER OF JURISDICTION. DECISION RESERVED. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Tuesday. In the Appeal Court Justices Herdman, Blair, Smith and Kennedy were engaged to-day in hearing the case or the Federated Seamen's Union v. Sanford, Ltd., a case stated under Section 105 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act of 1925. A dispute having arisen between the Federated Seamen’s Union Industrial Association of Workers (Trawlers Section) and Sanford, Ltd., fish merchants, Auckland, the Association made application that the dispute should be heard by the Conciliation Council. The parties were called together in council, and there arrived at a partial settlement, only being unable to agree upon the question of wages and hours of labour at sea. The dispute was then referred to the Arbitration Court, and the latter, after hearing the parties, issued its award, but notwithstanding that clauses 2-1 and 25 G. ol'the recommendations of the Conciliation Council were agreed on by the parties they purposely omitted from the award of these clauses, because of doubt whether the provisions were within the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction. In a memorandum to the award the Court indicated that a case would be slated for the opinion of the Court of Appeal. The clauses referred to provide briefly, inter alia:—(a) Employers shall give preference on engaging men to members of a union not -more than one month in arrears willi their contributions to the union; (b), unfinancial members of the union shall again become eligible for employment on payment of arrears; (c), if not sufficient number of members are available when required the employers may engage other men, conditionally that they become members of the union during their employment; (d), members of the union presenting themselves for employment shall not be more than one month in arrears with their contributions; (e), membership of the union shall be open to any man of good character. The case stated asks for the opinion of the Court on two questions—(l), Js it within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court to include in its award any of these provisions? (2), if so, which of the provisions under consideration, may be included for the seamen’s union? Contentions of Counsel.

Mr Ongley, counsel for the Seamen’s Union, said the case before the Court was the time-honoured dispute of a unionist against a non-unionist. The former always refuses to work with the latter. Unionists, before they commence employment, must stipulate to the employers the terms on which they will accent employment. To break employment to obtain these terms would constitute a “strike” within the meaning of the Act 'of 1925. In this case the unionists had stipulated that they would not accept employment unless the employers agreed to employ only financial members of the union, and when there were not sufficient unionists to satisfy the employment offering, to engage other men, conditional on their joining the union during their employment. These were the terms agreed on between the parties to an industrial dispute, and the Court of Arbitration should, in its paramount desire to facilitate the working of the industry, have included these terms in its award. lie submitted ihal the Court of Arbitration had ample jurisdiction to include these terms by virtue of the fact that they constitute the terms of the settlement of an industrial dispute. The Court reserved its decision.