BUTCHERS’ DISPUTE

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 218, 10 June 1933, Page 13

BUTCHERS’ DISPUTE

Constitution Question REFERRED TO COURT Threats of Boycott Alleged An application by the Wellington Master Butchers’ Association for a new award to cover the workers in the industry did not get far before the Conciliation Council yesterday, as the workers’ representative raised the point that the council was not properly constituted, and it was decided to refer the question to the Court of Arbitration for a decision. The Conciliation Commissioner, Mr. P. Hally, presided. The master butchers were represented by Mr. W. J. Mountjoy (secretary), Messrs. J. Carter (Palmerston North), G. E. Bennett (Wanganui). W. Tunley (Wellington), and L. Barber (Masterton), while Messrs. A. Croskery (secretary), J. E. C. Leckie, W. J. Mount, A. Hastings, and A. Needham appeared for the workers. Mr. M. J. Reardon represented third party interests. '‘Union Officials and Boycott.” “At the outset.” said .Mr. Mountjoy. “I desire, on behalf of the applicant master butchers, who represent 218 master butchers from a total of about 300 master butchers in the district, to make a statement in reference to this dispute, and the methods adopted by certain labour organisations iu this city. I refer to a deputation of labour union officials who. yesterday, called on certain business men and threatened them with boycott if they did not sign up an agreement at the Conciliation Council to-day. “Furthermore, certain hotelkeepers were called on by the deputation, and were informed that their hotels would be boycotted if they continued to deal off a certain butcher, if that butcher failed to enter into an agreement with the Butchers’ Union to-day. “Ou behalf of the employers, I have been directed to voice their strong resentment at the adoption of such contemptible and extreme tactics. I desire also to say that the Wellington Provincial Council of the Master Butchers’ Association is in no way opposed to industrial unionism or to industrial agreements, provided they are made on fair and reasonable lines—made to suit the industry, not agreements made to hamper and prevent employers from giving that service to which the general public is justly entitled. The use of such tactics is deplorable, and can surely be claimed to be an attempt to drive employers into agreements at the point of the pistol. “The representatives of the Wellington Provincial Council of Master Butchers’ Associations are here to-day in an endeavour to obtain a fair and reasonable agreement. They are here in a conciliatory spirit, and they are prepared to give the union its usual preference clause, and to honour any agreement that they may enter into. They cannot, however, enter into a similar agreement to that which was entered into in the year 1929, when trade conditions were good. To-day retail butchers are like employers in other industries. They are suffering from the effects of the economic and financial depression. Their turnover and profit have been-reduced, and they are, therefore, not in a position to accept an award similar to the one that went out of existence in August. 1932. Since then there has not been any award, and the employers have not exploited their workers because of this. There has been complete harmony between workers and their employers. “The claims presented by the employers before this council to-day are the conditions that have been observed by the employers whom I represent, and the lowest rate of pay offered to any experienced man is £3/18/9. and the rate increases according to position to £4/16/9. We, therefore, suggest that if the workers’ union is anxious to have an award they can have one to-day, so long as they are reasonable and prepared to meet the employers in the making of an agreement to suit the needs of the industry, and to assure workers uniform conditions and wages.” Workers’ Side of the Case. “There has been such confusion over citations, cross-citations, and counterproposals, that before anything can be considered the ground must be cleared,” said Mr. Croskery, in opening the case for the Wellington Operative Butchers’ Union “We understand that this sitting has been granted by you. Mr. Commissioner, to dispose of an application by Messrs. Tuffiey, Barber, and Preston, dated February 21, 1933. In the first place we would like to know whether this application by the parties mentioned ,1s (1) an application under section 41 of the I.G. and A. Act; or (2) a cross-citation to an application filed by the union on February 16, 1933; or (3) a counter-proposa’ to the application of the union filed on February 16, 1933, and set down for hearing at'the Court of Arbitration on March 9, 1933, at 10.30 a.rn. “If the application endtraces any of the three points mentioned, we submit that the matter was disposed of by the commissioner in his ruling on March 29, 1933. On that date a sitting was to have been held, but in view of the agreement reached on March 9 before a Council of Conciliation, it was held by yourself that matters in dispute had been disposed of. We are confident that your ruling of that date was correct. An agreement had been reached covering all employers in the ■Wellington industrial district. Even though that agreement has since been declared invalid, it was law until it was disposed of by the Supreme Court action. That being so, the agreement must have disposed of all other actions. In our opinion the present applicants cannot now reopen the documents that were in the hands of the commissioner before the date of the agreement made on March 9, 1933. “We claim that the papers of the present applicants were before tiie council appointed by yourself on March 9, 1933, the same time and place being mentioned in each of the two documents which were then before you. The parties to both applications attended at the sitting, and were given a hearing as far as they desired to be so heard. When the present, applicants withdrew, they did so of their own motion, and the matters contained in their application were disposed of in their absence. This action was a proper one to take in the circumstances. Section 48 of the I.C. and A. Act, reads: ‘lf any or all of the applicants or respondents fall or refuse to attend or to be represented at the inquiry. the council may nevertheless proceed with the Inquiry in the same manner as far as practicable as if all the said parties were present or represented.’ “We submit that when a legal process Is set down for hearing on a given date, and the case is before a legally

set up tribunal on such date, that because one of the parties to that case retires on the said date that his opportunity is lost if he absents himself from such hearing on the time appointed for such hearing.” A Tangled Skein. . Mr. Mountjoy said that as the Conciliation Commissioner had appointed the council this disposed of Mr. Croskery’s- contention that no dispute existed. Mr. Croskery mentioned that the commissioner had had to constitute the council in order that the union could place its documents before it. The commissioner said that the council had been convened for the purpose of making endeavours to settle the dispute. He hoped that the parties did not expect him to decide all the points which had been raised. He considered it would be wiser to refer the matters to a higher tribunal. Mr. Croskery said the union did not intend to allow the master butchers to imagine that they were going to “run the whole show,” and they did not Intend to be “humbugged” any longer. People had a perfect right to deal with any butcher they liked, and as far as his organisation was concerned it would not be the master butcl s they would deal with. Mr. Mountjoy. in submitting his statement, which was not worth replying to, imagined he had got away with a great deal, but he had got away with nothing. Many master butchers had informed him that they had given no authority to Include them on the list, and consequently not much reliance could be placed on Mr, Mountjoy’s claim that he represented 218 master butchers.

Mr. Mountjoy said tbe boot was on the other foot. Master butchers had Informed him that they had signed papers submitted by Mr. Croskery under a misapprehension. Mr. Croskery should take up a conciliatory attitude. The master butchers had offered £3 18/9 in July of last year, and if this was not considered adequate the workers should be prepared to argue the question.

Mr. Croskery: I intend to conduct future disputes with you, .Mr. Mountjoy, and your organisation in a very different manner, make no dispute about that. The Conciliation Commissioner again suggested that the matter should be referred to th" Court of Arbitration.

Mr. Croskery said that tiie union did not intend to proceed further until the court had decided whether the council had been properly constituted. The Commissioner: Do you want tiie whose dispute referred to the court? Mr. Croskery: No, only tbe question as to whether this council has been properly constituted. It was agreed to ask the Court of Arbitration to decide whether the dispute was in order. Tiie Conciliation Commissioner undertook to call tiie parties together again as soon as possible after the Court, of Arbitration has given its decision.