ARBITRATION COURT.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17291, 1 November 1921, Page 9

ARBITRATION COURT.

FREEZING WORKERS' DISPUTE. PRELIMINARY DIFFICULTIES OVERCOME. (PRESS 4S«P0lAIION TELEGRAM.) WELLINGTON. October 31. The Wellington freeaing workers' dispute came before the Arbitration Court to-day. The Court reserved conptterflitNMi of the claim to have bacon companies exempted from the dispute. TJie first question was that of a Dominion, or, at least, a< North Island, I a .vuard. The importanoe of this pho«e of the dispute was strongly emphasised by the representative of the Employers' Federation, who declared the industry oould not be carried on at the 'present rate of wages. Unless the works could bo started, the country was going to be involved in a loss of .hundreds of thousands of pound®. Jlr Sill, for the' employees, claimed that the New Zealand Freezing Workera' federation had not been cited, yis SUnsour, Mr Justice Fraaer, 3aid the Federation did not appear m tho list of parties cited. The Federation, he understoodj covered all unions 111 the Dominion, and Mr Sill claimed that the present dispute was purely local. The Federation had been left put of the list through .an omission on th© part 1 the .'Clerk of Award's. ■ ...Sw.-SiU. said the. Fefl^ration.had not TtAea part in He liim-' pelf had acted ais assessor for the vari9iu unions, and not for the Federation, wiiioh had dropped out at the ifiret' sittings. Tne Court retired to discuss the legal point raised, and, on returning, tho judge said the Court had ample powers for the citing of parties. It was quite plear the Federation bad been cited, and it was equally clear it had not been served, with thft notice of citptkm,. The Court had powers to-meet suoh cases, Bind to direct that the parties should : b® adctedf -by citation, amd to- postpone ■ the hearing of the disputes if necessary. The 'Court* declined: 'to'make! any "or-' der. striking out the Federation a? a „ party to the dispute. I Mr Sill, on behalf of the Federation, ' raised an objection .to.the.inclusion of . the Auckland Abattoir Assistants and Freezing Works Employee?' Union, and ; I the Poverty Bay Freezing , Workers j j Union, in the -dispute. . He submitted that tho Court had no jurisdiction io make. aai award' for the district, an no industrial dispute within the moaning of th© Act. was properly before the Court. The applicants were the Auckland .Farmers' Freezing Company, and a letter purporting to create a, dispute, had, been sent from the North and South Island Freezing Com- . panies' Association : to the- general i secretary of the New Zealand Freezing I Works Related Trades Employees' As- ! 80ciatioin. • The North and South [s- ' land Freezing Companies' Association tras an unregistered; body, and could not create a dispute. The Freezing Workers' Association similarly had no power to create a dispute, though itwas ia registered' body, for the two respondent unions. Mr Sill quoted a judgment of'the Court delivered by Mr Justice Sim in the Canterbury and Otago shearers' dispute. 1 llis Honour: Haia the Association no power»to conduct a dispute for local. unions? . . Mr Sill: Not without a resolution by I the local unions. _ The Federation is merely a consultative body. Mr Cookaou agreed that tlie point was quite a proper one. If .the union wished to delay proceedings, the matteq- was $o important that the Court should exercise its power to amend or waive irregularities, and _ permit or compel the Auckland Union to be a party to the proceedings here, where the "dispute was being lieard. If the dispute were heard in Auckland, tho Gisborne union, would be no better off. Sir Sill: For an industrial dispute, a* indicated by the Act, there must he a quorum of both parties. It .is not a dispute in whioh other parties are concerned. This dispute is not between the parties mentioned in the citation. His Honour: Wa« the Association empowered to negotiate on behalf of the individual unions? Sir Sill: No, sir. The whole thing was rushed through. No thought or I consideration was given to the matter. I In the hurry to obtain an award, the Association had not time to do anything. When the last arrangement was made between the Association and the freezing companies, the Auckland Union repudiated it. The Association had no power to compel them. His Honour: You have no award in Auckland? Mr Sill said it dated so far back that he could hardly remember if they were working under an agreement or an understanding. Mr Cookson reiterated that the whole community was going to suffer if the freezing industry was neld up. If the Court could s>ee any reasonable way out of the difficulty, he thought it should allow the caie to go on. His Honour: This is a much more important point than the last one rais- ! ed. I thins we ought to consider.that, •now. The Court then retired, and the proceedings adjourned until the afternoon. Upon resuming, 3lr Justice Frazpr eaid Mr Justice Sim had laid it- down that the Court had no jurisdiction to hear an application for an award unless at the time the application was made a dispute was in existence within

the meaning of tho Act. The Court wa« SiititlwU that freeeuig compuiuea themselves, as individuals, had not taken part in negotiations. The North and South Island Freezing Companies Association being unregistered, was incapable of creating or being a party to a -dispute, therefore, on September Ist, a (dispute was created] between an unregistered and a registered body. The Court .could not recognise suoh a dispute. Regarding the question as to whether the Association was acting an agent for the various freezing companies ~on authority, the Court held fetters which hardly bore out that construction. It was of opinion that there was no jurisdiction, to deal with tha case, bewuse a dispute had not been shown to exist between the companies and the unions. The Court expressed regret that the proceedings should bo held up on account of a technicality, because tho time for commencing the season was nearly duo. It hoped tho difficulties would be .overcome, and suggested' that a conference bo held, in ail endeavour to arrive at a settlement. After further argument and another retirement, th© Court held that a; dispute was in existence ou September Ist. Tlie President eaid they were quite agreed tho Association must bo treated as outside tho jurisdiction; of the Court, but,. in view of the fact that there w«t evidence of a dispute between, tho partiew, was jurisdiction, and the hearing of the application could be proceeded with. Tho Court will resume to-morrow.