FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ACT

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 47, 19 November 1936, Page 2

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ACT

Application Refused JUDGMENT ON CLERICAL WORKERS’ CASE “On May 22 last an industrial agreement was made between the YVellingtou Stock aud Station Agents’ Clerical Euij>loyees’ Trade Union and certain employers in the YVellington industrial district,” observed his Honour -Mr. Justice Page in the Arbitration Court yesterday when delivering judgment on the application of that union for an order declaring the YVellington stock and station agents’ clerical employees’ industrial agreement to be an award. “This application was made under section 33 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1925, and was opposed by the YVellington Clerical YVorkers’ Industrial Union of Workers.” “The section referred to,” continued the judge, “is as follows: ‘Where it is proved to the court that an industrial agreement (whether made before or after the commencement of this Act), is binding on employers who employ a majority of the workers in the industry to which it relates in the industrial district in which it is made, the court shall, on the application of any of the parties to the agreement, declare the same to be an award, unless in the opinion of the court such agreement, is, by reason of its provisions, against the public good or is in excess of the jurisdiction of the court.’

“It is necessary for the court, before granting this application, to ascertain broadly these things,” added his Honour. “That the agreement is binding on employers as mentioned in section 33 of the Act, that the agreement is not against, the public good and that the agreement is not in excess of the jurisdiction of the court. Section 26, sub-section 2, of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1925, provides that ‘Every industrial agreement shall be for a term to be specified therein, not exceeding three years from the date of the making thereof, as specified therein. . . .’ The agreement, which the court is asked to declare to be an award contains the following clause setting out the term for which it is made: ‘This agreement shall come into force as from May 22, 1936, and shall continue in force until May 21, 1938. and thereafter until terminated by three months’ notice given by either party.’

“The effect of the latter portion of that clause,” continued the judge, “is to extend the operation of the agreement indefinitely, not only beyond the jieriod of two years set out as the nominal term, but possibly beyond three or any greater number of years. The term is therefore not ‘specified,’ but is indeterminate. The whole scheme of the Act requires that the term for which an award is to run should be specific. The specified term may not exceed three years. It is clear that the term clause of the industrial agreement now before the court does not comply with the requirements of section 26, sub-setion 2, of the Act. It would be beyond the jurisdiction of the court to make an award in the terms of this agreement, and it is therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the court to declare this agreement to be an award “At the hearing of this application, it was argued that other clauses in the agreement were not in accordance with the requirements of the statute,” concluded his Honour, “but as the failure of one clause to comply with the Act is fatal to the application, it is not necessary to discuss these. The application to declare the agreement to be an award must be refused.” Mr. E. D. Blundell appeared for the applicants at. the hearing of the application and Mr. F. YV. Ongley for the YVellington Clerical YVorkers’ Union.