EXTENT OF AWARDS. ARBITRATION AND LOCAL BODIES.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 19, 22 July 1909, Page 8

EXTENT OF AWARDS. ARBITRATION AND LOCAL BODIES.

ABE THEY EXEMPT? A quest km of much concern to local todies was presented to the Court of 'Appeal to-day. Axe local Bodies subject to the provisions of the Arbitration Act? The matter came up before the court in conß'ection with the dispute between tlio Obago Painters' Union of EmpLoyere and. the Dunedin Painters' Union oi Workers. Application had been made hy the workers to have the Otago Harbour >J Boar/d and the Dunedrn City Corporation -added as parties to an award made in 1907. Tho bench was occupied by their * 'Honours the Acting-Chief Justice andJustices Den'niston, Edwards, Cooper, ■and Chapman. •Mr. D. M. Findiay represented the \Colonial Executive of the New Zealand 'Trades Councils, Mr. M'Gregor (Dun•lodin) fcho JJunedin City Corporation, and Mr. 'Weston, instructed by the Harbour /Botirds' Association, appeared for the -Otago Harbour Board. 'With the consent of the court, there."fore, the question was argued generally 'Sis affecting all local bodies and all of labour. Mr. Findiay said that the application came before the Court of Appeal under section 59 of the Arbitration Act. On the 29th October. 1907, the Arbitration Court made an award in the Dunedin Painters' dispute. On the 15th June last the Painters' Union made application to have t<he Dunedin City Corporation and the Otago Hr-bour Board added as parties to the award. The application came before the Court of Arbitration on the sth July, 1909, when it was contended that the court had no jurisdiction in regard to municipal corporations and harbour boards who were not subject to the Act. The question ■ was reserved for the Court of Appeal. The case involved the questions : — .(1) Do the provisions of the Indus■"trial Conciliation and Arbitration Acts embrace within their scope local bodies? (2) Whether or not that is the case do the Harbours Act and Municipal Corporations Act exempt those 1 bodies from the operation of the Arbitration Acts : Even supposing those bodies came generally within the Act, did special provisions take them, out of the Act? The section which gave to the Court its jurisdiction was section 76, dealing with jurisdiction and procedure of the Arbitration Act: — The court shall have jurisdiction to settle any industrial disputn,under the provision of the Act. Mr. Findlay then dealt with various clauses of the Act that appeared to bear on the case as defining "industries," "workers,"' and "local bodies." In certain cases as, for instance, the supply of water or of gas and electric light or tramways, the work was very generally done by municipal corporations. Reference was made to these "industries" in the Act in regard to strikes. Mr. Justice Chapman.: Most of them are carried on by local bodies, but all of them are within the competence of private persons. • Mr. Findiay contended that the scope of municipalities was widening and they were taking ,a wider part m industrial opeiafeions from day v to day. Glasgow was an instance. There were municipalities which conducted mining operations, theatres, schools, and engaged in many other kinds of industrial activities. Mr. Justice Chapman : It may suit local bodies to be bound by the Act, even, though they are legally exempt. Mr. Findiay : 'Che Christchurch Tramway Board is subject to the operations of an award. We think because municipal corporations are such large participants in industrial operations that they should be bound. Continuing, Mr. Findiay said that the words "calling on employment" mentioned in a section of the Arbitration Act must include persons employed by municipalities. He submitted that the municipality engaged hands and dis.missed them in much the same way as a private employer. Could a man en. gaged foi 1 7s a day be called a salaried officer ? Mr. Justice Cooper : No, a labourer receiving payment for .-work. Mr. Findiay : The wages of day labtourers are not paid in the same way as servants are paid. Counsel added a large number of cases -affecting the point. Mr. M'Gregor declared that the onus lay on the party moving the court to show cause why municipal corporations and harbour boards should come ■within ,>the Act. He submitted that there was no jurisdiction to bind a municipal corporation or a harbour board by an award under the Act, for three reasons : ' (1) That municipal corporations are not -expressly included within the classes of persons intended by the Arbitration Act; (2) that the employees of such corporations have acquired by virtue of their own Acts a special status distinct from the general status acquired by workers under the Arbitration Acts ; .•(3) that employees of such corporations are employed otherwise than for the direct or indirect pecuniary gain of the employer, or that it is orrly where it is shown affirmatively that employers are ■ employed for the -time being for direct •or indirect pecuniary gain that the corporation may become liable to the provisions of the Arbitration Act. He contended that except in section 71 there was nothing that could in reality include local bodies in the Act. He admitted Chat the Auckland Tram- ■ ways Company was an undertaking coming within the jurisdiction of the court. Mr. Justice Edwards : What is the difference in Wefiington ? Mr. McGregor : The Wellington City Council is a body elected to manage the affairs of the district carved out for it. Mr. Justice Cooper : It has purchased the electric lighting business, it runs the tramways, and now it wants to bxty the Gasworks. Mr. Justice Edwards : In what respect is that not an industry, an undertaking within the meaning of the Act ? Mr. Justice Denniston : Nowadays local bodies carry on business on a very large scale. Mr. McGregor : None of these industries are carried on for profit. They don't carry them on for pecuniary gain. Mr. Justice Cooper : Oh yes, they do. The Corporation of Wellington makes a boast of its profits over the .electric lighting. Mr. Justice Denniston : Where do- the profits go ? Do they go into the pockets of the ratepayers ? Mr. M'Gregor : They go to the Corporation, which has no pockets. Mr. M'Gregor, continuing, admitted that if a corporation couW be he)d to i carry on the enterprises for peemn»ry gain, it might be held bound by the provisions of the Act with regard to certain employees. At this stage the court adjourned till the afternoon.

No trace has been found of Henry Thompson, who left his home at Petone la.st Saturday for Wellington. The object of his mission to the city was to do some shopping. Judgment was given by Dr. A. iM'Arthwr, S.M., to-day, in tho case of Aubrey Houston v. Fredk. Engel-bert, trading a« the Lux Light Co., a claim •'for £48 13s commission. His Worship igswve judgment for defendants, wi*<_ tocete.