INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 46, 18 November 1936, Page 13

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE

Advocate Complains of a Publication Before commencing his opening address in the Dominion tearooms dispute in the Arbitration Court at Wellington yesterday, Mr. F. G. Young, workers’ advocate, said he wished to draw attention to what had appeared in that morning's "Dominion.” The same advocates appeared in the tearooms .dispute as in the private hotels dispute heard on Monday. "There is a sub-leader and article which comment on the case which was taken before the court yesterday and upon which the court has not given its decision," he said. "It appears to us this comment is improper and possibly comes within the scope of contempt. I wish to direct your Honour’s attention to it and would ask for your comments.” Mr. Young handed to the bench some clippings. Mr. Justice Page (after reading) : We will look into the matter. Mr. W. J. Mountjoy, employers’ advocate, said the suggestion had been made the previous day that the article in Monday’s "Dominion” had been “inspired.” So far as the'employers were concerned, they had no knowledge of it before its appearance. Until the subject was mentioned in the court he had no knowledge of yesterday’s sub-leader. Mr. A. E. Anderson, Auckland, who has appeared in both cases on the employers’ side, said he knew nothing about the source of the statement published in the Auckland newspapers. The details of attempts that had been made in Auckland to overcome board-ing-house difficulties by rearranging meals had been submitted by a witness. Mr. Young said the legislation providing for a 44-hour week came into force on September 1, but it was not until Monday when the case came before the court that a message giving publicity to the working of private hotels was published throughout the Dominion. "Our contention is that the Press is the mouthpiece of the employers and refrains from putting in anything favourable to the workers,” he said. "We are going to take steps in the proper quarters.” Before the court rose in the afternoon Mr. Anderson informed the bench that during the day he had communicated with the Newspaper Proprietors’ Association, and it had in turn communicated with the “New Zealand Herald,” the Auckland newspaper which had made the first reference to the operations in Auckland of private hotelkeepers, and the association had received the following reply: "Information concerning elimination Friday dinner came from boarder in house where notice posted. We made inquiries other houses. Association had no hand in publicity.” He repeated that the employers had had nothing to do with the appearance of the matter. Mr. Young commented that that did not explain the editorial.