Owner of pizza parlours undecided on next moves

Press, 10 February 1983, Page 3

Owner of pizza parlours undecided on next moves

The owner of Luigi’s pizza parlours, which have been seized under a High Court order, will meet a barrister this morning to decide what action he should now take. The owner, Mr Ray Hyndman, said yesterday that he could not say whether he would fight the case further; it would depend entirely- on his barrister’s advice. “If we can’t sort something out and I have to yield then I am not going to yield without one hell of a ruckus to make sure everybody knows about it,” said Mr Hyndman. Mr Hyndman said he was not giving up, but the decision on whether to continue in the courts would be taken responsibly, taking into consideration his staff, suppliers, and the well-being of his business. The chartered accountant appointed by the Court to take possession of the firm’s assets, Mr Tony Lewis, said last evening that he had not heard directly from Mr Hyndman. “If I don’t hear from him I will seek further directions from the High Court on managing the company and dealing with the assets,” said Mr Lewis. The shops are still trading. Mr Lewis, acting on a High Court writ of sequestration, took possession of Mr Hyndman’s three pizza shops and his factory on Tuesday afternoon. The writ was issued after Mr Hyndman had disregarded two Arbitration Court orders to supply the union with a list of names, addresses, and positions of his employees as required under their award. It was the first time that such a writ, which was issued on the application of

the Hotel Workers’ Union, had been used in New Zealand. Writs of sequestration have been contemplated on two occasions in. the past, Ironically, in both cases they were .sought by companies against unions. Mr Hyndman was ebullient yesterday at the support and publicity he was receiving in what he declared was a fight of principle against the union. He said that he had received $20,000 from 20 or so supporters, mainly businessmen, and news of him had reached Melbourne where a radio station had asked him to take part by telephone in a talk-back show. Mr Hyndman was at pains yesterday to emphasise his confrontation with the union and play down the fact that the writ was issued because of his ■ contempt for court orders. . The argument has gone on for more than a year and began when the union asked, as it was entitled to, for a list of the names of his employees. He refused to supply it. The union then pursued complaints in the Arbitration Court which ordered him to supply the names and also fined him $lOO and $5OO (the maximum). On both occasions Mr Hyndman announced to considerable publicity that he would not pay the fines. He has, however, since paid them. He has continued to refuse to supply the names. It was for contempt of those two court orders that the writ of sequestration was issued by Mr Justice Roper in the High Court on Monday. Asked yesterday whether he did not think his fight was a political one better fought in Parliament rather than in

the courts where defiance would only earn him con-tempt-of-court citations, Mr Hyndman said he had tried to interest members of Parliament and even the Prime Minister in his “principled” stand, but had been indifferent... “The letters come back saying ‘We like what you say; yes, we support you,’ but it is just words. To get things, moving it does take a certain amount of play for people, to be interested in the thing and I think with this sort of situation going on I am definitely creating that, aren’t I?” Mr Hyndman said he had nothing to do with the orchestration of telephone calls the union received yesterday, which were all couched in similar terms opposing the union move. Neither did he know who had called Christchurch radio stations, one of which said it had received a dozen “angry” calls about the action. The Canterbury Employers’ Association distanced itself from Mr Hyndman yesterday. The association’s assistant director, Mr Colin Mclnnes, said: “We would not condone the actions of any employer who acts against an order or requirement of the Arbitration Court any more than we would condone any trade unions taking any form of illegal action ... As I read it, it is a direct refusal to comply with an order of the Court. That is not the way we work.” Mr Mclnnes said that the way to deal with the situation would be to try to get the award changed. That would be the logical way to deal with it. As far as he knew, Mr Hyndman had not tried to do that. The member of Parliament for Fendalton. Mr P. R. Burden, said ’ last evening that the case illustrated the imposition the unqualified preference clause made on workers. He did not countenance flouting court orders, but felt that the law which imposed union membership should be changed. In spite of the fact that the issue was fully canvassed in the last Parliament, Mr Burdon said he would initiate action again to have the unqualified preference clause forbidden. He could not say. however, when there would be any concrete outcome of this action.