'PECULIAR DISPUTE.'

Evening Post, Volume LXXXII, Issue 65, 14 September 1911, Page 7

'PECULIAR DISPUTE.'

THE WAREHOUSE TROUBLE. MX. HALLY'S COMMENTS. DISPUTE TO BE SEPARATED. The novelty of the position of thewholesale merchants assistant*' dispute evoked some interesting comments from Mr. P. ttally, Conciliation Commi%. 6ioiiei', when the council met to.day, It might be explained that a. union of employees in warehouses and stores was formed in March last. It now num* bers between 300 and 400 members. Car« ters 6hd storemen are excepted. Tb» union is demanding better working con» dittohs and higher, wages. It appears before the- Conciliation Council in ti.e fiwt instance with its demands in order, if possible, to obtain their acceptance a* a whole, or in such part as may be* acceptable to it. Failing n. settlement by conciliation, the- demands will go before the Arbitration Court. It should also be stated that as th© new union wa* originally frndo to include, both "clerical" aha "manual" workers, that & largo number of clerks objected to becoming members, resolving to form » union of their own. Mr. W. A. W. Qrenfell appeared for the employers and Mr. VV. Maddieaft for the workers. The assessors for the were Mfessrs, tt. C. Tcwsley, W. Ferguson, nnd G. Magnus, and for the employees Messrs. 0. Farland, R. Simpson, and J. E. Westerly. About thirty of those Interested at* tended the hearing. Mr. ('ritifell r-n-id he W6ttld like td explain that the aspessoro had merely been nominated formally so that the Council might be constituted. Hft thought the Commisdont* would recog« ru.*e that the dispute which concerned such a vaftfc number of employers mads it impossible for the assessors to fulfil the requirement* of (he Art. In the opinion of the employers, the- dispute, in its present form, could not proceed, He quoted fc statement, made by Mt. Jtwtice Sim when tho Court was making its award in the general labourers* dispute at Chri&tchtirch in July, 1909 :— "Unions must not originate dispute* in. ntcb ft way a* practically to nullify the provisions of the Amendment Act o? lOQfi with regard to conciliation. Jtf they want •« wards tigadnst different classes of employers they must originate, a. e&parate dispute against e?ch da* o{ employers, po that proper opportunity may fed given to Jebtle every dispute by conciliation. If this course* is not adopted the unions who bring several separate disputes before the Court hh out dispute may have then- application for an award dismis.«ed and may hay» to go to the trouble and expense ot starting at the beginning again." Th* employers asked that the dispute b* separated into different 'sectione. in roply Mr. MartdUoii said the caso quoted had no application in th© present casfe 6s employer* might find th«ns«lm under each r«f shb eepar&ted awards, tt&had, however, no objection to sub. 'livision for the time being. This would chow the grater need for the one awwdi A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION. Mr. ttally ; It k a matter for th» Cmuicil to deal with. Mr. Grenfelh Then i will sek that ft case bs »t*ted for the opinion tha Arßifcr&tion Coitrt, as otwn-wi!© the whole dit^ut^ will end in ihaoi*. "I don't think theie ii «ny neeea* frity," responded the Coffimissioner, 'I think the dispute should be 1 - Mr. Grenfeu s Then it is usele&s eftn. wdering the detaile of the dispute. I am expressing th« opinion, of the whole body of employers. Air. Hally : I think the Council will agree with me. VIEWS OP THE COMMISSIONER. After the lists, wer* called over, Mr, Hally made an introductory atfltemenb. "This," he «a,td, "in « peculiar— l do not say wctrAordiftftry— dispute. I am unable to give you my lead m to set' tling it. it fe not like an ordinary trade dieputo. but a combination of trades. There are a number of pewwi* present, I understand, who wfeh to say something with & view of disapproving, with the organisation. Nob owy that, but thty go go far a* to say that "the organisation, if it becomes an «fcab» lifihed fact, would do them injury, t think, in justice to the council, ao, opportunity should be given them to «. press themselves. lam aware that they, have no legal standing." DISSENTIENT EMPLOYEES. As it we* understood iliat Mr, KeftJj desired to make a statement on behalf of ths dissenting hardwai^ employee*, he was invited to epesk. With the permission of the council, be reeerved life remarks until the subdivision w made. iiessre. Craig (etAtionerj-) and Muftdte. toh (eoft goods), who w«re ateo to «peak, a,greed to this course. Mr, Maddison wae commencing m> go into the dispute at the «ugtte«tioa «f Mr. Hally, when Mr. G»Mell «übmitted that the council, *b at preeent constituted, could not consider the tlie« pute. Mr. II ally : 1 only asked an a gen» eral way what was in dispute. Mr. Grenfelli We want it divided into sections. Mr. Bfftlly : I want to know what ho is after, I do not take thk from the demands. The council k plainly in tho dark as to what ie in dispute. U what has been etated to me pnvfetely ie cub« stantia-ted here some portion t>f the de« mands will have to be withdrawn. "The tiisptit* k not in cider," de. clared Mr. Gienfell. "I am entirely in the hand* of the Court," replied the Commissioner, Mi 4 . Grenfelh I euggeet that the difi. p«t-e be «übdi\*ided now. Mr. Maddison submitted that the die. p«t« was properly stated, tie a«ked lot a ruling on this point to ehorten. proceedings. My. Grenfelh 1 don't question tha* the dispute is legally a dispute. J va»i to ccc effect given t© the ruliags ef the Court. Mr. Bally ; I think it i* a matter for the council, as the two parties are op» petfed. In my opinion, Mr. Grenfell m light. Thre dispute should be heard in eectione. We can go into -committee to divide the dispute, and ihm the better pi».n would bo to adjourn «o that ©ach party should have an opportunity of ap. pointing a&seeeors qualified to deal witk the different sectione. SUGGESTION OP VICTIMISATION. Mr. Maddison: This narrowing down may place the union in a. very awkward predicament. We are not claiming that we represent the uhoie of the men; we would not my that in any caee in can. sequence of the statement* regarding victimisation. H tm* dwpute wereseparate, we mfl,> have to deal with only «rven or eight men, and that might mean a certain amount of victimisation, RfcFKMIED BACK TO UNION. The rouncil went into committee and adopted the fof towing resolution :— "That as tne appliention tiow before the council i* not. acceptable in ite prcsesit form, it be lTton-ed bark to the union, po that it may subdivide the employers into *»ectioT!« having ideniical interefrta, and the claims for each eectkm be «übmi«ie4i t« ft dclci't«d jaeeUfig si JJii* cgoacil,"-