Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Union Secretary’s Appeal Disallowed

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, March 31. An appeal by Douglas Mcßae Warren against a judgment by Mr E. A. Lee, S.M., over a strike at the Islington Freezing Works was disallowed by the Court of Arbitration in a judgment released today.

The Magistrate’s judgment was delivered in Christchurch on May 29, 1964. In the appeal before the Court of Arbitration, Mr B. McClelland appeared for the appellant (Mr Warren) and Mr R. W. Birks for the respondent (union of employers). Mr McClelland submitted that the Magistrate was wrong in stating that the action was a civil one, and contended that as a crimination action, it required proof beyond reasonable doubt. He also mentioned alleged incorrect statements in the Magistrate's judgment. He claimed that the prosecution was brought in an attempt to intimidate Warren and prevent him from doing what he considered his proper job as a union official, and that it was therefore in contravention of section 167 of of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Mr Birks said the evidence was sufficient to establish that Warren called the stopwork meeting, and that the meeting related primarily to the docking of Mr Warren’s pay for time off work on union affairs in excess of the maximum of two hours in the week concerned. Civil Action

The Arbitration Court ruled that the action for a non-suit was a civil one, and that the Magistrate was not in error as to the standard of proof required. It agreed that the stoppage of work constituted a strike, and that the Magistrate had the opportunity of assessing the relative reliability of witnesses. The Court agreed with Mr McClelland's fifth submissions to the extent that notification of a meeting alone fell short of inciting men to strike, and also agreed that there were errors in the judgment. The grounds for the appeal were that the judgment was erronous both in fact and in law.

In the case heard by the Magistrate, the New Zealand Freezing Companies Industrial Union of Employers alleged that on October 24, 1963, Mr Warren, a slaughterman employed in the Islington freezing works and the secretary of the Islington branch of the Canterbury, Marlborough and Nelson Freezing Works and Related Trades Union, incited or instigated an unlawful strike of workers at Islington. The Magistrate said in his judgment that Warren went about telling the men there was to be a meeting. It was not established that the men asked for a meeting. Calling of Stoppage On the charge that Mr Warren instigated the stoppage. Sir Arthur Tyndall said there was no evidence of incitement by haranguing, or thta inflamatory language was used. Mr Warren had admitted under cross-examination, however,

that he knew it was wrong to call a stop-work meeting. “We are not disposed to dismiss the action under section 201 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, as we do not consider the breach either trivial or excusable,” the judgment said. “The fact that stop-work meetings have frequently been called and held at Islington works since 1959, apparently without complaint from the management, should fairly be advanced in mitigation, and in our view justifies the small penalty (£5 and costs).” Change in Policy

The employees’ representative on the Arbitration Court (Mr A. B. Grant) said he was not prepared to accept and believe much of the evidence of Mr Sellwood, the slaughterhouse foreman. The manager of the Islington works (Mr Wilson), he said, deserved a sharp rebuke for the volte face which eventually led to the conviction and fining of Mr Warren.

“To permit for over four years, and to agree with, certain acts completely inconsistent with the provisions of an award and terms of an agreement, and then, apparently without any preliminary warning, to change his policy is to do something which, in my opinion, reflects grave discredit upon management,” Mr Grant said. He also expressed dissatisfaction with “a statute which enables associations or unions of employers to take punitive action against workers’ union officials or members who, perhaps in defence of working conditions, incite or instigate a stop-work meeting.”

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19650401.2.191

Bibliographic details

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30714, 1 April 1965, Page 14

Word Count
685

Union Secretary’s Appeal Disallowed Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30714, 1 April 1965, Page 14

Union Secretary’s Appeal Disallowed Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30714, 1 April 1965, Page 14

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert