HOTEL WORKERS

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 50, Issue 150, 7 April 1930, Page 7

HOTEL WORKERS

UNION OFFICIALS’ VISIT.

right of entry opposed

(Special to the “Guardian.”) WELLINGTON, April 5

An important issue is raised by a proposed addition to the preference clause in the new award now being sought by the New Zealand Hotel and Restaurant Workers’ Union in the Arbitration Court, in that it seeks to rive the right of entry to employers’ premises by the union’s local or organising secretary. The proposed clause reads: —“The local secretary, or organising secretary, shall he permitted to interview employees at their place of employment on any one day in each week,” etc. Speaking for the employers in Court yesterday, Mr S. E. Wright said that the clause was very strongly objected to by a number of employers. On the other hand, some employers did not object to the visits of the secretary if arranged mutually. The clause had been included in previous awards in the industry bv agreement between the parties. While there was no objection to any individual employer agreeing with the union for periodical visits by the secretary, or organiser, it was contended that the individual employer should have the right to decide whom he would allow on ,his premises, and Mr Wright believed that that contention could he upheld under common law. However, they did not altogether rely on that point of view, but also question the" jurisdiction of the Court to include in an award the right for a third party to legally intrude on an employer’s premises. Mr Wright quoted at some length an opinion given by the late Sir Charles Skerrett before he was appointed Chief Justice. This opinion concluded:—“The circumstance that the same or a similar clause has been inserted in awards with the consent of the parties has no bearing on the question. If I am correct in my opinion that the Court had no jurisdiction to impose the obligations of the award then even consent (which is absent in this case) cannot confer jurisdiction. The second question put to me is whether any action can be taken with the object of compelling the Court to amend its award by the deletion of the offending clause. The answer is that no application can be made to the Arbitration Court for this purpose, unless, perhaps, under some discretionary power given to the Arbitration Court to amend its award. I have not looked for such power, nor am I aware of its existence. The proper remedy of the employers is clear. It is to move in the Supreme Court by certiorari to bring up the award for the purpose of quashing it so far as the clause is concerned.”

“We rely upon this opinion,” said Mr'Wright, “and suggest that should the Court entertain any doubt on the matter the question should be submitted to the Court of Appeal for final decision.”