UNION OR GUILD?

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 162, 11 July 1925, Page 9

UNION OR GUILD?

FERRY MASTER'S POSITION. PARTIAL ANNULMENT REFUSED. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ACTION. An application for partial annulment of a recent agreement in connection with the Devonport Steam Ferry Co., Ltd., and the Takapuna Tramways and Steam Ferry Company's Employees' Union, affecting the inclusion of ferry masters, was refused, without prejudice to further proceedings, by the Court of Arbitration this morning, on the grounds that there was no jurisdiction to deal with the matter in tlie form in which it came before the Court. The application was brought by the Auckland Merchant Sajvice Guild (Mr. V. A. Ryder and Captain F. A. Macindoe), the ferry companies employees' union (Mr. T. Cain) being the respondents. At the outset Mr. Cain raised an objection that the Court had no jurisdiction, in that, since a full agreement had been arrived at, there was no dispute before the Court. Mr. Justice Frazcr said it might be that the Court could treat the application as one for an interpretation as to whether the ferry masters were bound by the agreement. Previous to 1919 there was no union for the employees, explained Mr. Cain. Prior to the amendment of the rules of the guild the ferry masters, holding river tickets, were not eligible for inclusion in the Merchant Service Guild. When it was found that they were not eligible they had been refused clearances. Provision was made in the presnet agreement for the masters. Mr. Ryder contended that the river masters' certificates were valid, and that the Board of Trade would recognise them. Mr. Justice Frazer said the Board of Trade could not recognise them, because it had no equivalent certificate of its own. However, the ruleß, as now amended, altered the position. He felt that the present application could only be treated as one for an interpretation. The present application was not made in the correct form, and the Court therefore had no jurisdiction. Again, the Court could scarcely treat it as an application for an interpretation without the consent of both sides. Only the inspector of awards had statutory authority to state a case for interpretation, unless all the parties agreed to it. It appeared to his Honor that half the ferry masters had been granted clearances by the secretary of the ferry union, and the other half had not. His Honor said he would not like to give an interpretation at present on the facts as he knew them. Nor would he give an opinion as to whether the preference clause with regard to ferry masters was binding, pending further proceedings, which would not be prejudiced by this refusal. Proceedings could be brought in a form giving the Court jurisdiction.