NO DISPUTE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 25, 31 January 1933, Page 12

NO DISPUTE.

FURNITURE TRADE.

CONCILIATION IMPASSE.

UNION REFUSES TO SIT.

As- the representatives of the Auckland Furniture Trades Union declined to sit, an adjourned meeting of the conciliation council called for this morning fell through. When the case was first - called on, the union protested that the dispute had not been properly created in the meaning of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and suggested that the easiest way out was for the employers to start over again. The main objection of the union was based on the fact that the notice to the union was written on letter paper of the Employers' Association, and that it did not "disclose anything in the nature of a dispute between the union and the employers of the furniture trade. It was explained for the employers that the secretary of their association was also secretary of the Employers' Association, and the letter paper of the latter association was used in error. Objection Not Upheld. The Conciliation Commissioner, Mr. P. Hally, held that the objection was trivial and ho did not uphold it. The union representatives then complained that the list of employers cited was not nearly a complete one, and demanded that fresh citations be issued with the necessary month's grace allowed by the Act to those cited. Mr. Hally said he would adjourn the proceedings for a fortnight, and see how the position then stood. When the parties met again this morning, Mr. A. H. Dixon, secretary of the union, said the union representatives could not agree to sit, as they still held that there was really no "dispute" in the meaning of the Act. He said lie had forwarded a letter of objection to the clerk of awards stating a case, which the clerk was asked to bring under the notice of the Under-Secretary of Labour, and until an answer was received the union must decline to sit on the council. The Protest. In the letter forwarded to the clerk by Mr. Dixon, the union contends that neither the Arbitration Court nor a conciliation council has any power to consider an application made under the Act unless at the time the application was mado there was in existence "an industrial dispute between the applicants and the respondents." The protest contends that the letter received by the union was not in order nor in the proper form, and that failure to create a dispute in the proper way was not a merely technical matter, but vital to the whole case. Mr. Dixon suggested that the simplest way out of the impasse would be for the employers to drop the present proceedings and begin de novo.