CLERICAL WORKERS

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 42, 13 November 1936, Page 16

CLERICAL WORKERS

Union Opposes Sectional

Award

The Wellington Stock and Station Agents’ Union of Employees applied in the Arbitration Court yesterday to have an industrial agreement, made on May 22 and purporting to remain in force until May 21, 1938, declared an award. The application was opposed by the Wellington Clerical Workers’ Union.

Mr. E. D. Blundell, appearing for the applicants, said the agreement covered 700 employees and 11 firms. Two firms not parties to the agreement, Messrs. Johnston and Company, Wellington, and the Wairarapa Farmers’ Co-opera-tive Association, Masterton, had been advised of their right to appear in the proceedings, but did not do so. Until the recent legislation such an application as the one being made was a mere formality and he submitted that the new legislation had not altered the position. Counsel dealt with the possible objections that the making of an award might be contrary to the publie good, beyond the court’s jurisdiction or contrary to the provisions of the Shops and Offices Amendment Act. If the scale of wages set out in the application conflicted with the provisions of the lastnamed Act, the latter must prevail. On behalf of the clerical workers’ union, Mr. F. W. Ongley objected that the proposed award was indefinite in its application. There was no limit to the extension of the term “stock and station agents.” The time for which the award would be in force was not properly defined, and therefore it would be impossible under the Act to secure a new award. Counsel said that clerical workers employed by stock and station agents were in the same class as other clerks. A multiplicity of awards was to be avoided. A further submission was that the union of employees cited in the application was not a union in the proper sense hut was a body created by the employers with some intimidation brought to bear on the workers to oblige them to join it. Mr. Monteith asked to be shown wherein the agreement was limited to stock and station agents. Mr. Blundell: It is only a reasonable inference that it is so limited, although it is not set out in black and white. Mr. Monteith: You are asking the court to take a hurdle it cannot take. Under the Trades Union Act you could sign up any firm at all provided it employed the classes of workers defined. Mr. Blundell: I submit it is not so. The name gives the inference —the Wellington Stock and Station Agents’ Clerical Employees’ Union and membership in the union is clearly confined to a certain class of employees. The court reserved its decision. APPEAL AGAINST REFUSAL TO REGISTER Oil Company Employees An appeal by the Wellington Oil Office Workers’ Society against the refusal of the Registrar of Trade Unions to register the society was also opposed by the Wellington Clerical Workers’ Union. Mr. J. J. Gurbett appeared for the appellants. He said the society was in a similar position to the stock and station agents’ body, except that its ease was a stronger one. The oil office clerks had been blocked by the Clerical Workers’ Union in every way from forming their own body. The society covered 400 members in the Wellington district and application had also been made for the formation of a New Zealand union which would cover approximately KMX) workers. The matter of its registration had been held over pending Che decision of the court on the Wellington appeal. Legal argument was submitted to show that the general clerical workers’ union had no right to oppose the registration. Counsel pointed out there were separate unions of clerks in banks, insurance, law, accountants' and other offices, but these had been formed by arrangement with the general union. For the clerical workers' union, Mr. F. W. Ungley said there were only a few considerations that could be submitted in appeal, such as diversity of interests, distance from the main union, or the absence of any body to which the society could belong. None of these considerations could be justly advanced by the appellants. Previous decisions were quoted in which the court disallowed appeals against the refusal to register separate unions. Mr. Garbett then replied to the argument that there was no diversity of* interests between the two classes <of clerical workers. The general union, he said, was n heterogeneous collection of clerks, having nothing in common with the clerks in the oil industry except the universal necessity of earning a living. He went on to describe the special conditions pertaining to the clerical work of the oil industry. The position was somewhat similar to that of banks and insurance companies. There were big staffs in different departments, with many avenues of promotion. The present prospects of promotion must be preserved, instead of having the standard set by another industry where the same opportunities did not exist. The same argument applied to all the other conditions of employment. For instance, employers in the nil industry had agreed to a working week of 37J hours, whereas the general union wished to force a 38-hour week.

Counsel further objected that the general union was a political one. It. was affiliated to the Alliance of Labour and its members had been told they would be required to contribute to a political party. The society of clerical workers in Ihe oil industry wished to be free from political affiliation. Its sole aim was to advance the workers’ interests.

Mr. J.. Jackson, president of the society, gave evidence that the members wished to be free of the general union, and Mr. R. P. Levin described the work required of oil office clerks. Decision was reserved.