NON-UNIONISTS' RIGHTS.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 276, 20 November 1926, Page 11

NON-UNIONISTS' RIGHTS.

QUESTION OF A CALL. WATERSIDERS' DISPUTE. INTERPRETATION OF COURT SOUGHT. —r — With a view to obtaining an interpretation of a clause in the waterside workers' award, an. action was brought against Leonard and Dingley, Ltd., stevedores, of Auckland, in the Arbitration Court this morning by the Inspector of Awards. Nominally, plaintiff claimed to recover from defendant the sum of £10 as a penalty for an alleged breach of the award. On hearing the circumstances, Mr. Justice Frazer said the question of a penalty was not really at issue, as he understood the parties desired an interpretation. The facts, which were admitted, were that the defendant company on September 14, 1926, employed two non-union workers on work coming within the scope, of the award, and failed to permit them to continue working till work Ceased for that day. The inspector, Mr. F. F. Grieve, said a call was made for labour, and, there being insufficient unionists offering, the non-unionists were employed. On the following day, without making a call, the same men were allowed to start work on the job, but, later in the morning, unionists offering their services, the non-unionists were put off and members of the union were put on in their place. Mr. Lowrie, who represented defendants, explained that on the second day there was a call for incidental labour, and, as unionists did not respond, it was thought futile to call a second time for labour for the job on which the nonunionists had been employed on the previous day. When on the second day unionists offered their services at about 9 a.m., the non-unionists were discharged in order' that the unionists might be employed. Defendants acted under the misconception that they were compelled to employ the unionists. Properly, the non-unionists, having once been started, were entitled to continue until the end of the day, or till the work was finished on that day. "The point is that, whether employed rightly or wrongly in the first place, once started these non-unionists were entitled to a full day's pay," said his Honor. After considering the matter, the Court decided that the question was complicated by the further question as to what would have happened had a call been made. Although it was possible that the Court could answer the immediate question without reference to the rights of the unionists utfder the preference clause, it was felt that, without dealing with the other matters somewhat intricately mixed up with it, the Court might lay itself open to misunderstanding. Mr. Justice Frazer suggested that the inspector, the union, and the employers should make a joint application for an interpretation, on the basis of questions relating to the call.. Should it have been Tiade on the second day, and what form should it have taken? The further question at issue in the present case could be added. It was resolved to follow this course.