WAGE TRIBUNAL CHAIRMAN

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27309, 27 March 1954, Page 6

WAGE TRIBUNAL CHAIRMAN

REMOVAL DEMAND EXPLAINED

PUBLIC SERVANTS’ VIEWS ON DECISIONS (New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON. March 26. “The Public Service Association confirms the announcement by the Minister of Justice (Mr T. C. Webb) that it asked the Government for the removal of Judge Stilwell and the appointment of a new chairman of the Government Service Tribunal,” said Mr J. H. Tuohy, president of the association, in a statement issued today. The association, he said, was no less aware than Mr Webb that this was a “drastic step.’’ “Mr Webb stated that Judge Stilwell continued to enjoy the confidence of the Government," said Mr Tuohy, "but, as the association pointed out m its written statement to the Minister of Justice, no arbitration system can exist unless both parties have reasonable confidence in the arbitrator. “The immediate occasion for the request was the recent prisons case. In this case, the tribunal once again issued a decision without a word of explanation, comment, or reason, and this in spite of a Supreme Court judgment last year—when Mr P. M. Butler was charged with contempt of the Arbitration Court for his comments on a decision issued during the presidency of Judge Stilwell—which pointed out the need for Courts to state clearly the grounds on which a decision was based/ “Evidence Heavily Discounted" “Furthermore, according to the dissenting opinion in the prisons case, the evidence of witnesses sworn on oath was heavily discounted by the Judge because witnesses were interested parties,” said Mr Tiiohy. “Even the evidence of the Secretary of Justice and Controller-General of Prisons (Mr S. T. Barnett) was discounted for this reason. Such a procedure makes it almost impossible for any employee organisation to prove its case.

“Moreover, the dissenting opinion stated that the Judge virtually dismissed the sworn evidence of witnesses in favour of the views of the Government’s member on the tribunal, a one-time Controller-General of .Prisons, but the views of this member were never given in evidence, could not be cross-examined, and were not available for rebuttal by other evidence.

“Mr Webb was informed that the peculiar attitude over the prisons case had only brought matters to a head, and other instances were cited to him which had caused the same dissatisfaction,” Mr Tuohy said. “We are not complaining at the decision of the tribunal, but at the manner in which decisions are arrived at and stated.

“The Government’s reply to our detailed request can be described only as curt, dismissing it without giving any reasons. Because of the Government’s decision, the association must now consider what its attitude to the tribunal is to be, and an early meeting of the national executive has been called for this purpose,” Mr Tuohy concluded.