ARBITRATION COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIV, Issue 90, 16 April 1913, Page 7

ARBITRATION COURT.

DEFECT IN THE ACT.

DDE TO CARELESS DRiCPTDTG.

The sittings of the Arbitration Court were continued' with Mr. Justice Sim presiding.

The Court delivered ite judgment in connection with the application, made by Mr. Hammond on behalf of the Auckland and Suburban Local Bodies' Labourers' Union to have parties added to the Auckland and Suburban Local Bodies' Labourers' Award. The. Court held 'that the : parties could not be added to the. award owing to a defect in a clause in the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act, 1911. The appli-cation-asked that the Mangere .Road Board and other local bodies be added ■to the' award. A recent dispute between the General Labourers' Union and the City Council vas referred to the Arbitration Court for settlement, a reeommendatkm for settlement being made by the Conciliation Council. The notices re-quired-by sub-section 10, section 7, of the Arbitration Amendment Act, 1911, were duly given". No notice of disagreement was filed by any of the parties, and the notices provided for by subsection 20, section 7, were duly given. The recommendation, it was claimed, now operated as an award of eub-seetion 20, section 7. The judgment stated that section 7 provided that when a recommendation of the Conciliation Council was filed; together with -the notification that no settlement had been arrived at, the clerk of awards should give notice to the parties of the filing of the recommendation and requiring them, if they disagreed, to signify their disagreement within one month. The section that if within the time aforesmd no notice of agreement had been filed, the clerk should give notice to the parties of the fnet, and •Hie recommendation should, as from seven days after the date of the notice, operate and be enforceable in the same manner as an award duly exe•cuted and filed by the parties. The question was: "What is an award executed and filed by the parties!" The answer was that no such award was known to the daw. The parties to an industrial dispute might execute and file an industrial agreement, but they Shad no power to.make any award. That power could only be exercised by the Arbitration Court. If, therefore, the words of the Section be read in their ordinary meaning, the section was wholly ineffective. The judgment concluded: "In the present case the words of the statute are plain nnd tmivmbiguoua, and they must bo construed, therefore, in their ordinary sense, although the result is to lead to an absurdity. We must hold, then, that the recommendation is a. mere nullity, and does not bind any parties to the dispute. It woold be useless, therej fore, to add parties to it, and the application rs dismissed. It is unfortunate j that what may be surmised to "have been j the intention of the Legislature should be defeated in this -way by careless and incompetent drafting."" j A NONSUIT GRANTED. Further evidence was heard in the case in which Mata Vrsalike (Mr R. A. Singer) claimed from John Burgess Teasdale (air J. R. Reed, K.C., aud Mr W. A. Black) tho sum of £490 19/, as compensation for the loss of both hands due to ii blasting accident while cleaning ji drain for defendant on November 15 lust. The point to decide was whether plaintiff had been engaged in contracting work or on piecework. His Honor itated that to recover compensation the onus was upon plaintiff to prove that he was acting as a servant of the defendant. Plaintiff's own evidence, however, had proved that he was engaged in contracting work. A nonsuit was thereupon asked for by Mr Singer, and this was granted, plaintiff to pay £15 15/ coats and witnesses' expen bos. AN AGREEMENT ARRIVED AT. Mr PuUen, for the Gisborne Tailors Employees' Union, intimated that an agreement had been arrived at between the parties (with the exception of a few minor points) on the basis of the Auckland award. Mr Pullcn asked when the Court would next sit in Gisborne to hear evidence, and his Honor replied that the date would be fixed later.