WAREHOUSE WORKERS

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1233, 15 September 1911, Page 2

WAREHOUSE WORKERS

THE UNION AND THE EMPLOYERS. CASE AT THE CONCILIATION COUNCIL.

The demands of (lie r-rrently-orgn.niferl Assistants' Union camp before tho Conciliation Commissioner (Mr. I'. Halley) tit tho Supremo Court yesterday, when the assessors for the parties assembled' for the first fitting of the Conciliation Council, set up to hear the dispute. The employers were represented by Messrs. 11. C. Tewsley (Sargoad, Son, and En'en), Wm. Fergnsson (Wellington Harbour Board), and G.- Magnus (Magnus, Sanderson, and Co.), assessors, and Mr. W. A. Grenfell (secretary of the Wellington Employers' Association), agent; for the union the assessors were Messrs. G. Farland (warehouseman and union secretary), B. Simpson (warehouseman), and J. E. Wcsterley (storeman), while Mr. IV. Maddison appeared as agent. There were also in attendance during the preliminary proceedings about thirty employees of the. city warehouses who objected to tho union and its demands altogether, and also several city merchants. ' An Objection. Mr. Grenfell said that owing to tho wide range of the union's demands it had been found practically impossible 'to come to some satisfactory arrangement for a representative list of assessors, and at this juncture the employers had agreed simply to formally nominate assessors in order that the constitution of the council might be facilitated. At the outset he wished to point out that a dispute covering so wide and diversified a field as was covered by the demands of tho union should bo heard in sections. The Court had, in fact, ruled upon that point. He quoted a statement by Mr. Justice Sim when the Court was making its award in the General Labourers' Dispute at Christchurch in July, 1909:—"Unions must not originate disputes in such a way as practically to nullify the provisions of the Amendment Act of 1908 with regard to conciliation. If ttey .wanted awards against different classes of employers they must originate a separate dispute against each class of employers, so that proper opportunity might be given (o settle every dispute by conciliation. If this course is not adopted, the unions who bring several separate disputes before the Court as one dispute may have their application for an award dismissed, and may have to go to the trouble and expense of starting at tho beginning again." He therefore argued that tho demands should bo taken in separate- sections. Ons Award Only. Mr, Maddison, for the union, dissented from such .i subdivision, as it would lead ' to overlapping; although, he added, there ' might not bs any strong objection to subdividing the dispute for tho purpose of investigating the claims under their'respective conditions, such a proceeding should not prejudice the ultimate framing of one award covering tho whole ground. Tho Commissioner said that the Council could determine this point. He inquired whether there were »ny applications for exemptions. Mr. Grenfell, pursuing the question of subdivision, urged strongly that tho Council should' state a case for the opinion of tho Arbitration Court. Tho Commissioner did not see any necessity for such a course. Mr. Grenfell said that the whole body of employers was agreed that the ruling of the Court—which he had quoted— should bo followed. The Commissioner agreed tllat the dis pute was of such a character as to render it advisable to divide it up into sections. What he thought was that the ground might bo cleared first. .

.' Mr. Grenfell slid (hat the subdividing of the dispute placed the question of .hearing applications for exemptions in a dillcrsnt light. The Commissioner said that with, tho subdivision of-the dispute into sections —perhaps six—tho question of export assessors for each section should be" e'dn,sidored. He called for the list of applications for exemption. . A long list of firms was read out. A Peculiar Case. The Commissioner then went on to say that tho dispute was; a peculiar one, of such a nature that he was unable to give them n lead. The ground of tho dispute covered so many different pursuits. There wove also, ho understood, a number of persons present who desired to express their disapproval with the organisation of tho union; they went <o far as to suggest that if the organisation became an established fact it would do them injurv. ,In justice to tho council, these peoplo should bo heard, although ho was awaro that they had no legal standing. Messrs. Keith, Craig, and Munckton. representing hardware, stationery, and fancy gonds, and soft goods respectively,. | -ntimatcd that they had intcnant to place their objections before the council, but would now prefer to state these when the dispute was heard. . A Plain Hint. Tho Commissioner then called in Mi-. Maddison to state his case iu a general way. Mr. Grenfell objected. Tho council as at present constituted could not proceed to hear the disputes regarding tho various classes of employers in the list. They should subdivide the area to bo covered. Tho Commissioner saw no reason why the case for the union could not be stated in a general way. "The council is in the dark as to what is in dispute," he said. ''If what has been stated to mo privately is substantia led here some portion of the demands will have to bo withdrawn." Mr. Grenfell said tho piling of the Court was perfectly clear, and should be followed. Why, if the matter had to be dealt with in detail, go over tho ground in a general way? "To put it plainly, Mr. Grenfell," said the Commissioner, "to get rid of Mr. Maddison and yourself. (Laughter.) What have you to say to Mr. Greufcll's objection, Mr. Maddison?" Mr. Maddison contended that if Hie dispute was not properly constituted now it could not bo any better constituted when tho question of subdivision was reached. If any danger of victimisation was to be feared from those proceedings, that danger, it occurred to him, would bo greater if the dispute were taken in sections. He could see no reason why the matter could not be taken as a whole, and quoted Judge Haines (New South Wales) when ruling upon a similar set of circumstances. Tho subdivision of the dispute would narrow it down, and possibly place tho union in on awkward predicament. The union did not claim that it represented the whole of the employees, and the fact that it did not placed those whom it did in dsnger of being victimised. Dispute to be Subdivided. Tho Commissioner said that it was a matter for the council, as tho parties wei'e not in agreement upon tho point. In my opinion Mr. Grenfell is rignt. Tho dispute should be heard in sections. I suggest that we go into committee, to divide the dispute into sections, and then adjourn to enablo each section to appoint assessors qualified to deal with tho respective sections. This was agreed to, and tho council went into committee. On resuming tho council reported its decision as follows:— "That as the application now before tho council is not acceptable in its present form, it bo referred back to tho union so that they mav subdivirlc th<i cmn'oyrvs into sections having identical interests, and that, the claims lor ouch section bo submitted to a deferred meeting of this council."