NEED FOR CARE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVIII, Issue 263, 5 November 1937, Page 3

NEED FOR CARE.

COURT'S STATEMENT. CITATION OF PARTIES. HINT given to unions. Tlip nord for (-are in tho citation of |wirtio* to industrial disputes ivaf ••ni|iha.ii*p(l i n a . nienioran<luiii issued >• v Uio Arbitration Court to-dav. in relati"U to the award of the Wellington, liiranaki. and Xelson i-n^iiu--drivers' dispute. "The Court's attention lias been dnectid to the fact that the nunilier of originally cited far exceeded the minil>cr of employers remaining iu ie Iwt of parties." the tnenioratidum i n . 't is clear that, were it not '■;r the radical curtailment of the list ot respondent* when the parties were conferring in Conciliation Council, the ( ourt. would have lie en oblijjed to heur an nnusimlly larjre numlier of applications to h„ struck from the list.

Applicants' Duty. It is the duty of applicants to limit their citation In parti eft employing labour cominjr within the scope of'the dispute. Neglect of thin precaution causes jrrcat inconvenience, not to sav atinoyance and expense, to the Department of Labour. a« well as the parties cited, with the additional result that much time is wasted in conciliation proccedinjrs as well as in Court.

"It. is to be hojied, therefore, that applicant parties will be particularl v careful in this connection." Iho only matters referred to the Court, the memorandum added, related to under rate workers and the exemption of certain parties. These matters the Court had settled. In all other respects the award represented the agreement reached by the parties in conciliation council.

Origin of Memorandum. W hen the dispute was before the Court. Mr. H. J. Bishop, of Wellington, representing the employers cited, referred to the lack of care with which employers had been cited in the case. Apparently, he said, a list of all persons owning machinery had been secured from the Labour Department, and thev had all been cited whether they were employers or not. The result had !>ecn that they had to take steps to get themselves struck off the list of parties cited. The onus should be on the applicants to see that a party ought to be cited, not on the respondent to show why he should not be cited. Mr. Bishop said. He would like a statement, from the Court embodying his objections.