LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 250, 15 July 1908, Page 9

LAW REPORTS.

COURT of appeal; THE BLACKBALL STRIKE. APPEAL AGAINST THE HiNE INTERESTING ARGUMENT ' N JUDGMENT RESER\ ED At tho sitting of. tho Court of' Appeal yes-, torday when His Honour. tjib',;.Chief 'Justice (Sir Robert Stout) and theiri'-Hpnours'-'jus-;. tices Williams, Denniston,:v; Ed-wards^,-.and. Cooper' were present, argument WRs'-lieard relativo to a motion to'sef made by the Arbitration; djreptin^ 1 payment by the individual- niemfca'Silqf tlie. Blackball Miners' Union'of "the efinoviof:c£7ff imposed on the Union as *a "penalty offence of proposing a strike b.l so. !^to qtiash a distress warrant at Greymouth under that'order. Mr. C. P. Skerrett, E : A. R. Guinness, M.P.), of the motion, and Mr:' H7C'D.?dM;:.i4.G:: (with him Mr. ]). M;." Findhw)', Vttn'-T showi cause. ;• .;,' nu > imi nt> Mr. Skorrett, in opening the caie'for'-tha 1 appellants, said that the object of the. proceedings was 1 to' determine the validity of the enforcement of a fine, imposed-on the Union by order and distress.• The ,form„p£ the proceedings was by^'tiqEftfrkuiji.qpjmsel on the other sido.,,-; §!l> though .the proceedings"ias~tq:vjho .-'distress warrant might not bo o§ra,"judici:J-.,6liaractoE and therefore not tho of;.fv„fiertjqrarj, be J no, Chief. Justice:, Doesj -counsol-.,-qn- the other sido admit that ! 'li;e'V*SupremK-~Court has control over the. Arbitration jCourt? ; '. Mr. Bell: The. point • I ..waive ;is .the;., objection that the fprm ofp proceedings'.. should have been by $oi a Jy.,ior« tioiari. ~r j.,[ n Mr. Skerrett, resUmj(ig v ;sai,d,, tjifit were only three section^-01--tlif) .-Industrial Conciliation; and .Arbitriitioii;f"jtct-' tpf-wliicli" ho-would. need: to ! : 36.;6f T .tho main, ! Act, 1905, Section 10l of„tho samcAot, and Section 15 of the Ajncaidihg.' .the same year. Section 96 ;>v?is theT.one, which no doubt counsol for the- ; othor>i side-would rely upon ■to oust :the Court of Appeal. It, s \vj.s worded as foll0WS: - . 'SSOO-OrV:' "Proceedings in thesCoui ; fc; (of "Arbi- •; tration) shall. not be impeached or held ' : bad for- want of form; riofsliall the same .; bo removable to any .-Court by certiorari • or otherwise; and not award;:-:ordetyor proceeding of the Coiirt'shalkhtf ' to -be - challenged,. appoaledtagainst;;' , viewed, quashed, or Tcalied v by any Court of judicktii'r&tyW aiiyific'— , count whatsoever." xrar s-3?;>- J Mr. Boll: You''migh|-;ijok K .as well. , ; Mr. Skerrett, in. question; tho. tex£,'.of;;'whTcli*n',w"av he said, as follows;—,. / Al i./' r .i, ; ,, V i " The Court shall M'all-matters be*-'-' , foro' it have full and - . tion to determine tho isalad ' ner in-alLrespects >a» • -..good conscience it thinks .. Mr. Skerrett then* submitted'thasection 9G did not take away, the .right pf certiorari when want of jurisdictioli ll Apg'eSfed , ','dfi l face' of tho ivp tho section' -which -;eijfQrS& : mont of awards,' 'and ' tho question was Section IS of the provided, in . Section -101. -pkjjf 'tlie- ; funds of a union 'were;- a fine , imposed on;'the' Indiyi<}iial members/could' be •provided . inter..' alia that-.any., uui.onVwliiqh . struck or, proposed' or astrilie. -was 6 ul 'ty. of an offonqe, ~'aiid;. TCas r Jwi)l^ u 3b%!a fmo, aud .niight be proceeded'agiiiiist'jh tlie .same manner as"if it \vor.e,guilty n bf.;i. i ]jrcac.h ;of an award provided .case of.a union did n6t.«xceef"£lfc,ans"in respect of a, member,.;S,lo: jTliei Rl^ckbafl • Miners , ..Union . had. be^ v/ fiijg(|(- ; ji'ndor 1 Section: 15,. and no question arose in; tho- present proceedings as. to ' £ Wio. .raliditj 2of th?, enforcement.. Thereupon, c- pVoc eedi ng s;.. 'it er o taken under subsection-,;(e) "Section 4piJ and a ...distress warrant,,-was, i?sujjd (against the union, and : it vras.--re.[unicd-. uujja bena." Upon its - return^ 'made to,, the.. Court : ofw!Arbitrations.for.v-an order . directing tho payment ,«fc the .finely the individual members of the Unibn t0...th0 extent-of-not morer'.than.'filO.'ieach-,; iMr. iskerrett submitted that; the was incorporated bv Se'ctiojtdo vas;tha-;pro-i ccduro; introspect., of actiou: against at union for. recovery :of. a . fine ■ in the case* of, procccdiiigs.agaiiist'individual mombers. . If, his contentioKavofeb incorrect,'• some.'xurious: consequences For oxample a' worker who *.httd« remained loyal to his employors could bo compelled to pay a portion of ! a.' deficielifcy..jn the imount .of afino imposed firstly .on, th,e...Unioii and,'.; the.' payment - of. ther;amouht;. cMd:„be .enforced, by .attachment^an.d.j^p'fjsphinent'.. Mr. Justice. something of tho sortTis ,'liappemhg-jn. connection with a, strike ;.her.o'Mn Wollihgton;'. Mr.. Skerrett: That. is.'.so'.,'., The Chief Justice: ijh'oi,-.wfiole." point appears: to be whether a'„fifipi,, niider section 15, is enforceablo.'under,, .subsection (f) of "section 101. ' " U,';' - r ■Mr. Skerrett, - who repliedv.in.ihe,-affirma-tive, then submitted that a.,strike, "waiv- not' a breach of.-an. 15 of ..the, Amendment'-.^ip4<'l^s^'''^J|es% - 'was, ho continued, no-express/finding {q{tho effect., that, the assets.vana~ : funds;-of^;the Union wero It was - necessary Vslioiild ;be%su(il( a finding. - Counsel alsp' addr'ess'sd. ;argumeiit in support .of-his contention.that-thft,Court of Appeal had power i te,:.re.vieiy;-..;:.ahd.Vset: aside any order which #e-Cojirtl of Arlii.tr.a----t-ion made without- (lis-, tress warrant issued" thereomanv .»n't , Mr. Guinness followe{Vi l o.h'4hevs'aiu6 sido. Mr. Bell, on. behalf. respondents < said tho important point,: tusimiifeh; whether the men in question' mado liablo 'by tho procedure;,.adopted*by.>tho' Court of Arbitration, but whcther. tho,Court' of Appeal could interfere ; with-the':: Court of Arbitration- or . challenge.t'thec.prbcedum 1 leading up to'the issuesof.vtheJ certificate.'!?. Mr. . Justice •'WilliamsaisSup.posin.srwihis Court :is found .to havesnb jmaklictiontlyet! that the: order is, ultrat \dr(S, 2ho;cquesti<jn: arises, Could the warrant r be' acted upon?.--'.vr Mr. Bell pointed out; thatj lie the technical objection':6ri> that .point.r:;,i'fbo. answer to ' it was that- fib-jongiai-i.ther.'diss tress warrant followed the order of.;;tho' Court of Arbitration i.t;£.oo.uld!v'nofcTbo -im-' peacl.ied." In order thatoifchat'; might; be done, it would be necessary rtonTcmbve tho order of the Court of' Arbitrationi'frpm-the file of tho Magistrate's Courtfswhich Avould be an intorfbrence, with the' Court of Arbitration. Counsel ■ next Court' of Appeal .was prohibited 'byi-.section 9G of tho Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1905, from interfering >srith anything done in the Court of Arbitration,, so long as that Court was dealing n-as the subject mattoivo'f its'jurisdiction.'' Mr. Bell cited .tho cnso'/'tif ITalropa .v. Setli Smith, and pointed out; ; "tllat'''tho 11 t?rpvife'ioii'' relating to jurisdiction. i& ;! 'tho~ : Native Law! Laws Amendment, 1895 "(Whiclr w ; as 'dealtivith in that case), wife ;'iiot s¥''-'s T trong''as iection 96 of tho Industrial Gondiliation'arid' Arbitration Act. lie then prqcceded : to do:end tho Order of the Court'of Arbitration, uid argued that .it'was '.regular 'itf ipcct and within tho poVbrs ; 'and''jiirisdii'ti )f that' Court. ' ■ :,r "' 'i-'j'-.' Mr. Findlay contended'iiiter alia'tllat the' nost satisfactory yas by making tlie ponilty l a : ;jbjht , Jih'h'ility. r, . 1 Mr. Justico Edwards P-It niightrbb l vay, but.it is an eminSntlv'""Vihsatis"fictor.v' ray. to. distribute itarice, Joiios rhight ,: and , ''.'t'h'b', iaililf might, mako Smith night.'be. on -bad termsr and "tlie -Jones's fould smile over the matter. (Laughter.) J

Counsel,. resuming, submitted that the AN, bitration Court. was i entitled •' to make.'the order ; m the. form in which, it appeared, whether it. was the most convenient form or not.. '. . "Mr. . Skerrott briefly. replied.. • j T|io Court reserved its decision,