Salvation Army appears in Arbitration Court

Press, 18 November 1982, Page 7

Salvation Army appears in Arbitration Court

The Canterbury Hotel Workers’ Union brought a case to the Arbitration Court in Christchurch yesterday, seeking an order for a penalty of $1 against the Salvation Army for alleged breach of the Rest Home Employees’ Award. The Salvation Army is named as first defendant and the Salvation Army Property Trust Board as second defendant. The union alleges award breaches at the Resthaven Eventide Rest Home and at the Addington Social Services Centre. It has been described as a test case on whether thou-

sands of workers employed in religious or charitable institutions throughout New Zealand are entitled to the protection of awards and whether organisations such as the Salvation Army are bound by awards. Evidence was heard from Christchurch witnesses yesterday; then the case was adjourned to hear witnesses from the Salvation Army headquarters in Wellington next Tuesday. The Court comprises Chief Judge J. R. P. Horn and Messrs P. L. Oldham and D. Jacobs. The union is represented by Messrs R. Lingard

and T. C. Weston and the defendants by Mr A. D. Ford.

Mr Lingard said that the claim was for a penalty for alleged breach of the rest homes award in that the Salvation Army had not supplied a list of names of its employees. . He said that it was “common knowledge” that the Salvation Army believed the award had no application by virtue of section 213 of the Industrial Relations Act. Under that section no award affects the employment of any worker employed other than for pecuni-

ary gain. Local bodies, chartered clubs or bodies corporate are specifically excluded from exemption. Mr Lingard said that the union brought the proceedings “reluctantly.” It was sensitive to the “highly esteemed and respected position” the defendants held in the local and international community, and wished to praise and support the work of the Salvation Army in the social services field. “It does so, frankly acknowledging that a substantial slice of its own membership services an industry that

is slow to recognise the social problems its product causes — those less fortunate and unable to cope with the stresses and strains of modem society,” said Mr Lingard. “But it needs to be said that any embarrassment emanating from these proceedings should properly rest fairly and squarely on the defendants. Their inability or unwillingness to follow the correct procedures in deter-

mining such matters as provided for under the act has left the union little or no alternative but to commence penal proceedings.” The secretary of the Federated Hotel Workers’ Association, Mr L. N. Short, said that the Salvation Army had accepted it was a party to the award when it was first conciliated in Canterbury in 1972. About 1976 the award was made a national one and the Salvation Army

was still cited as a party. Mr Ford said in his opening submissions that the Salvation Army in New Zealand would celebrate its centennial next year, and this was the first time it had been involved in industrial proceedings. The Salvation Army was “in no way” anti-union and in fact historically had a close relation to unions in both New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

The Salvation Army did engage in certain commercial operations which were covered by awards, namely the former Peoples’ Palaces or Railton Hotels as they were now called. But social services were different. Mr Ford said that the Salvation Army was not a body corporate. The Property Trust Board was, but it was'set up in 1931 only to hold title to property. It did not employ staff.