IN COMMITTEE

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 58, 18 September 1928, Page 7

IN COMMITTEE

CONCILIATION COUNCIL 11UL.1NG SOUGHT FilOM" COURT The Court of Arbitration yebterday heard argument on tlio f|iß;stiuii whether the Conciliation Commissioner adopted the correct procedure when lie ruled recently that tlie . Wellington Butchers' Dispute should be heard m committee. At the time the dispute come buioi-c the Conciliation Council,. Mr. A. \\- Croskery (agent for the workers) moved that the Council should go into committee, but the motion was opposed by Mr. B. L. Hammond (agent for the employers). The Commissioner gave n, casting vote aud ruled that the dispute should bo heard in committee. As a result of his ruling, the hearing ct the dispute was not proceeded with, the employers withdrawing. Mr. Hammond stated yesterday tliat the only way of settling the question of representation at the conciliation proceedings was by taking a ballot on the understanding that those who were not successful should remain in the room. For him to have proceeded with the dispute would have meant a breach ct faith on his part. lie submitted that an employer was given an absolute right to be present at a conciliation council. Among those who were spectators were employers who were actually parties to the dispute. He claimed that even if a council was conducted in private that did not mean that any actual parties to the proceedings were to be excluded. They had a right to remain and intervene at any stage they might find desirable. He contended that the Commissioner was wrong in ruling that the proceedings should ho in committee and that the agents should remain. The agents could not be in any better position than the employers. He asked the Court to lay down the principle that the employers had the right to be present throughout The.proceedings, oven though they did not take part in them. Mr. Croskery pointed out that the dispute was different from the ordinary dispute in that the usual three assessors were increased to five. lie claimed that the country districts were represented. The Council could adjust its own procedure, and in the event of an. equality of voting the Commissioner decided. He contended, that it would be useless if conciliation councils.were to be held full of people who were observers. There had been one two instances of that, and most of those engaged in trade unionism contended that it was not desirable or conducive to settlements of disputes. Jn the circumstances lie suggested that the Court should throw the whole thing out and allow the rn'oeecdings to be started again if it was desired. Mr. Hammond said that the Wnirarapa people were not assessors, aud they wanted special conditions. The Waira,rapa delegates were not represented on the Council, but they took part in the ballot on the understanding that they would be allowed to remain. nis Honour (Mr. Justice l'Yazcr) said ho thought it was common ground that they had a right to be present at some stage. Mr. Croskery said that when it had been moved previously that the Council should go into committee it had never, been refused. His Honour said he did not see any harm in the Council going into committee when it had heard everything that had to be said. The Council could be public again, if necessary. The agents might take it that the Court did not want in any way to restrict the freedom of action in conciliation council. It would be quite wrong for the Court to try and force 'something hard and fast. All that the Court could give was as reasonable an interpretation as possible; one which would bo a guide and which at the same time would preserve the. elasticity of the Act. Decision was reserved.