NO JURISDICTION.

Press, Volume LIX, Issue 17938, 5 December 1923, Page 8

NO JURISDICTION.

LOCAL BODY CLERKS AND ARBITRATION COtiRT.

NO AWARD MADE. The Court of Arbitration has given its judgment in the question raised, at -the sittings of tho Court in Christchurch in August and November, as, to the Court's jurisdiction in the matter of making an award to cover tho clerical staff of the Christehurch City Council. The Court's judgment, delivered by his Honour Mr Justice Frazer, is as follows: — This is a dispute between the Christchurch Clerks, Cashiers, and Office Employees' Industrial Union of Workers and the Christehurch City Council and other local bodies in tho Canterbury Industrial District. A question arose in regard to the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration to make an award for clerical workers receiving not more than £3OO per annum, employed as members of the office staffs of City and Borough Councils, Drainage Boards, Hospital Boards, and Tramway Boards. As far as the City and Borough Councils are concerned, it was contended by - the Christehurch City Council that* the legal position in regard to the appointments, tenure of office, and remuneration of tho office staffs of a municipal corporation was set out in section 68 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1920, which provides: "The Council may, by resolution, from time to time appoint fit persons to be town. clerk, treasurer, surveyor, collectors, and all such other officers and servants as it thinks necessary to assist in the execution of this Act, and may pay such persons such salaries and allowance out of the district fund as it thinks fit. Any person appointed under this section may be, at any time removed from office by the Council. Somewhat similar provisions are contained in the Land Drainage Act, the Hospital and Charitable Aid Boards Act, and the Christchurch Tramway District Act, 1906. The effect of the legislation is to Test in the local authorities the power of appointing and removing certain officers and servants, and of fixing their salaries. The judgment of. the Court of Appeal in the Otago painters' ense (Book of Awards, Vol. X., p. 510) was that the Court of Arbitration had jurisdiction .to bind a Municipal Corporation, and a Harbour Board, by an aifcard in so far as tho employment of wages men was conoerned, but could not bind those bodies by an award relating to the employment of salaried officers and servants lawfully appointed under the special legislation dealing wiih the appointment of such offioers. The union contended that, at all events, the office staff of a trading department of a local authority could properly be dealt with by the CourE. This contention related especially to the electricity department of the Christchurch City Council. It was proved, however, that appointments to the staff of that department were made in accordance with Section 68 of the M. I C. Act, 1920; and ; in any event, th© position of a Municipal Corporation in regard to commercial undertakings had been fullj considered by 'Mr Justice Chapman in the Otagopaipters' case (Book of Awards, Vol. X., at p. 515). We cannot differentiate the position of the staff of a trading department from that of the general office staff. A distinction was sought to b® drawn between the officers holding what may be termed designated positions and the rank and file of the ofPcc staff. We think, however, that Section 68 of the M.C. Act has dealt with both classes. It refers to "officers and servants." We take it that an "officer" is a member of the staff who holds a responsible position ana has more or less defined powers and authority. "Servant" is a more general term, which often (as in the case of the expression "public servant''J includes senior and responsible officers, but in the present case, when used in contradistinction to "officer," it .must be taken to mean members of the staff who fill subordinate positions, and do not exercise authority. The judgments of Mr Justice Salmond and the Court of Appeal in Mansfield v. Blenheim Borough Council (1923 N.Z.L.R. 842) contain many references to authorities which go to show that It ia the policy of the Legislature, not only to give local authorities a free hand in making appointments of salaried officers and servants, but to restrict tHem from binding themselves in regard to theif future relations with those persons. The appointment of such >an officer, or servant, doe 3 not constitute a contractual relation between him and the local authority but it is an appointment made under th© authority of a Statute and subject to the terms of the Statute. I'or these reasons, .we are of opinion that the Court of Arbitration has no jurisdiction to make the award asked for. In any event, a salary limit would have been a very unsafe basis on which to make such an award, for it might easily be the case that the most responsible officers, of a small local authority, whose duties and terms of employment should certainly be regulated by the local authority itself, would come under th© provisions of the award, while less responsible members of the office staff of an important city corporation would be unaffected by it. At the hearings before the Court the Christehurch City Council was represented by the late Mr Frank Cooper, and the union by the secretary, Mr R. D. Martin.