FULL COURT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 244, 3 July 1918, Page 7

FULL COURT

AMALGAMATION OK RELATED INDUSTRIES ARBITRATION ACT CASE The full Court: was engaged yesterday in hearing argument in ue matter uf Ulfi IJ>-C!ul atory Judgment!! Act, t!H)S, anil in tlii' in.ittur «1 the Industrial Conciliation 11111 l Arbitration Act, I'JOS, between iurtescue William Rowley, IC^yislruf ol Industrial Unions, plamtitf, and tho Canterbury Slaughterman's Industrial Union ul Worker*, of (.'liri.slcliurch, defendant. On the bunch worn His Honour lliti Chief Justice (Sir Robert SlniitJ, His Honour Sir. Justice Chapman, anil JI is Honour Mr. Justice .Stringer.

Tim Sulicitor-ljeneral (Sir John Salmuml, KC.) appeared for the Registrar, tmd Sir J oil 11 l-'indhiy, K.C., with him Mr. L. I,'Ji. Kdwards, for llu; dei'ondaut Slaughtermen's Union.

t the (iiiosuou submitted for determination by t.lio Court was us lo the construftmii of Suction 20 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 11KIS, namely, (hi! question wlietiier that seciion tumbles an industrial union of work"rs engaged in one industry to amalgamate wall an industrial union consisl"■U of workers engaged in a dillorent industry if tlio.su industries are related industries within the meaning of Section 21 of the said Act.

Sir John .Siiiniond, in opening, staled that the occasion for the proceeding.-: arose through the defendants being desirous of amalgamating with other unions and applied to tlio Registrar for registration. 'Jhe Registrar refused the application, holding that such amalgamation was not; authorised by the Act and that tho unioim desiring lo amalgamate /oust bo engaged in the same industries. It was contended by tho other side that if the industries were related that was sufficient. The defendants wished to amalgamate with the Export SlaughterMen's Union, Mlmongors' Union, Tinsmiths Union, and titlier unions, under the title of (lie Canterbury I'Vcezing Works and Kelaled industries Union. Sir John Jj'indlay said that lm was present to argue only as to whether 'related industries couid amalgamate and not us to whether the Registrar's refusal to register the new union was justified. Sir John Salmond then went on to deal with the law bearing on the matter and contended that the expression "the same industries' used in the A.ct did not mean rehilud industries, and thai, amalgamation could only be by the dame industries and not by related industries. Related trades can be federated. but. not united, "the same industries" may amalgamate or unite. Sir John Findhiy said (he definition of industries in Section 2 included a business, and therefore it was submitted that as used in Section 20 the word had a wide meaning. There, was a strict rule against; allowing a multiplicity of unions, ami therefore they worn entitled to infer 'hat tho Registrar had done his duty and not allowed two uniiins to register. ' he avowed intention of Section 11 was (o prevent a multiplicity of unions lo be registered, and the purpose of Section 20 war, lo reduce tho number of unions. Sir John Salmond. in reply, contended Hint in the point of view of public interest and of the right: of minorities the words should hear a limited menning. The Court reserved ils decision.