JUDGE REFUSES TO MAKE ORDER

Dominion, Volume 38, Issue 22, 20 October 1944, Page 6

JUDGE REFUSES TO MAKE ORDER

Harbour Board Dispute

(By Telegraph.—Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, October 19. The opinion that the Court was being asked to pronounce in an appeal upon a decision of the Arbitration Court was expressed by Mr. Justice Northcroft in the Supreme Court when he declined to make a declaratory order concerning the paymeat 'to be made to-a ooatman employed by the Lyttelton Harbour Board for work do’ne on Sunday. It was the first time that an originating summons had come before the Court seeking a declaratory order covering the operations of an industrial award. The originating summons came under the Declaratory Judgments Act, IJVb. ana the Lyttelton Harbour Board was plaintiff and Cecil Malvern Welsh, defendant. The application of plaintiff was for a declaratory order determining the question as to the construction of an agreement for service between the board anil defendant, its employee. The summons sought an answer to the question of what wages should be paid to defendant as a senior boatman for a week’s work .of 1hours when part of the week’s work was done on Sunday between 7 a.m. and J a.m.. and in particular whether the board was bound to pay defendant double the ordinary rate of pay for work done on Sunday in addition to his ordinary pay. Mr.’ J. F. B. Stevenson. Wellington. appeared for the board aud Mr. M. J. Grosson for Welsh. “These proceedings have been brought to obtain the opinion of the Court under a declaratory judgment upon a question which might, never come before it and upon a question which, having regard to the history of the relations between plaintiff and defendant, probably will never arise,” said his Honour. “The Arbitration Court has already pronounced favourably toward defendant. I eannot escape the conviction that this Court is being asked to pronounce in an appeal upon the Arbitration Court’s decision. Having regard to the provisions, of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act and to the legislative arrangement that the view of the Arbitration Court should be final. I think it would not be proper to assume an appellate judgment in a matter of this sort by the machinery of a declaratory judgment.” Costs were .allowed defendant.