WATERSIDE WORK

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 126, 23 February 1944, Page 6

WATERSIDE WORK

Position In Disputes Of Control Commission ARBITRATION COURT RULING

The decision that the Waterfront Control Commission, bj virtue of its. position as an employer of labour, could be citea as an original party to a dispute, and as a subsequent party to an award, was made by the Court of Arbitration in Wellington yesterday. It issued a direction on these lines after considerable discussion when the adjourned proceedings between the New Zealand Waterside Employers’ Association and the Wellington Foremen Stevedores, Timekeepers and Permanent Hands’ Union for a new award were resumed after ah interval ot some six months. The case was adjourned till the next sitting of the Court in Wellington, after Easter. For the Waterside Employers Association, Mr. W. H. G. Bennett, with whom Mr. K. Belford appeared, said on the question of wages that there was little variation from those applying when the dispute was first before the Court. Mr. Justice Tyndall pointed out th a. in the memorandum of partial settilment only the first of the Court’s general orders had been provided for. It was agreed that the intention had been to inelude both orders, and his Honour said that people should be very careful as to what they signed in future. The workers’ union had invoked certain proceedings to test certain things abou'the Court; yet the Court found irregularities i n documents before it. If the Court’s jurisdiction is going to be questioned in matters like this,” he added, “the Court is going to be very careful and the parties should be ultra careful. • Scope of Jurisdiction. Appearing for the Waterfront Control Commission, Captain R. E. Price, the chairman, ■ referred to the commission s order of November, 1942, taking over control of the great majority of foremen stevedores under the powers conferred on it by the Waterfront Contro Commission Emergency Regulations, 1940. He dealt also with the extent of those powers. Rightly or wrongly, he said, the commission felt it had authority to make orders overriding any award made under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, by virtue of the Emergency Regulations Act, 1939. The commission felt that, provided it acted withiu the jurisdiction of those regulations, it was entitled to prescribe the conditions of employment for any of its servants. Nevertheless, it had not dona so in the present case because of tarstage which the dispute had reached and also in order not to prejudice the ngh'. of the parties to go to Court. Captain Price, replying to his Honour, said his view was that the Court had no jurisdiction over the 32 foremen taken over by the commission. However, the .commission did not wish to prejudice what the men felt to be their rights. Mr. Bennett expressed surprise at . Captain Price’s statement, and said that when the original negotiation commenc--ed the commission had not taken over the supervision of the working of cargo and the engagement of foremen. His association had all along opposed the commission’s taking over control of the foremen. Captain Price had throughout declined to take any action in the present dispute, ■and had said that'the commission would sit back and wait for the Court to decide 'the; case. ■ ■ - . ■ - - ■ Captain Price said it. was contrary to fact that he had said he would sit back and wait for the decision of the Court. He had been asked hot ,to--prejudice the -case, and had agreed to that course. It would have been quite improper at that stage to have done anything to determine the wages and conditions of employment of the foremen still in the various companies’ employ, and that was . the sole reason why the commission had not done anything. Clause one of the commission’s order made it clear, Captain Price said, that the foremen taken over became the servants'of the commission. In his view, the commission nad power to do anything and everything. Its powers could not be wider; yet,.without limiting those powers, certain specific provisions were 'made. ' .

His Honour:' I wonder why we are here at all. I am not talking about jurisdiction. Apparently you have jurisdiction to make conditions for everybody involved in this dispute. Mr. -R. J. Smith, appealing for tne workers, respondents in the dispute, said he was'astounded at'the attitude taken up by Captain Price, specially in view of the' meetings, that had been held and the assurance that had been given that the commission did not wish to be cited, and was prepared to abide by the Court’s decision.

Comment By Judge.

His Honour said that in view of what had occurred it behoved the Court to be ifiry careful about- its jurisdiction. The ease, was fraught with, all sorts of legal difficulties, and it. was very advisable that those should be resolved. ■

Captain Price said that, the commission would ‘nof'do anything less favourable with'its employees than was provided for'in an award. To Mr. A. L. Monteith, workers’ representative on the Court, he said that no action had been taken to suspend the' expired award in respect of the men taken over by the commission, but that, course could be taken at any time by the Minister, if he so desired. His Honour said a question was whether the Court should make a new award in view of the very special powers of the commission.. The exercise of dual jurisdiction was very undesirable, and there could be a waste of public money and everybody’s time. Mr. Belford submitted that the commission should be named as a party to the dispute. . - Position of VVatersiders. Objecting to the making of an award, Mr. T. Hill, general secretary of the New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Union, claimed that the watersiders were in the position of contractors under the present system and should have the right to appoint their, own foremen, _ His Honour said the -Court could not accept that contention.. Waterside workers were in the position of piece workers. , Mr. Smith also refuted the contention, and .Captain Price said the commission 'did not and could not enter into contracts with the watersiders in the capacity they claimed. , After the Court had considered the whole question, his Honour said it appeared to them that the commission as. a body corporate could be either an original or a subsequent party to an award. If it had been intended that , the commission should be in the position of the Crown, the Court could see no reason for the provision made in Clause 17 of the Regulations. . . Captain Price said that the commission had other means cf dealing with the situation if it chose to use them, but it was anxious to have the present dispute settled. ~ The Court directed that the Waterside Employers’ Association cite the commission as a respondent.