NO COMPULSION

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 24, 27 July 1929, Page 11

NO COMPULSION

AMENDMENT TO AWARD

QUASHED BY FULL COURT

The action taken by the Dunedin Tobacconists' Industrial Union of Employers to have an amendment to the Dunedin, Oamaru, Gore, and Invercargill Hairdressers and Tobacconists' Assistants' Award'quashed has been successful, an unanimous decision having been reached by the Full Court. .

j The award, the amendment to which | was the subject of dispute, was made on 4th March, 1927, and by an order made on 12th March, 1929, the Arbitration Court altered the terms of the award |to the effect that all persons employed as assistants in the area affected by the award must become members of the Otago Hairdressers and Tobacconists' Industrial Union of Workers, or be dismissed from employment, and that only members of the union could be employed by hairdressers and tobacconists. The employers attacked the amendment for the following reasons: That they did not consent to the order varying the award, the consent being necessary by law; that the alterations were beyond the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court, because (inter alia) the provision amounted to the creation of compulsory unionism; and that the order placed an unwarranted restriction 'on the employers in the choice of -.- 'employees. ■ ■

In his judgment, tho Chief Justice Ihe Hon. M. Myers, said that the real question for determination was whether the order made by the Court of Arbitration was within the jurisdiction of that Court. In his opinion, the point was concluded by the decision in Magner y. Gohns, which was binding on the Full Court, and which was to the effect that the inclusion in an award of a clause compelling workers in the industry affected to join a union was not within the power of the Arbitration Court. Counsel for the defendants had argued, however, that the following clause' was within the jurisdiction of the1 Arbitration Court: "It shall be a condition of employment of air the said employees that they shall join" the saia nnion'and that they shall remain ' members of the said union. If any employee shall neglect to become a member of the union within the time specified he shall be dismissed. If any person who has already joined the union, or who shall pursuant to the provision of this clause join the union, shall voluntarily and of his own motion resign from the union, he shall be liable to dismissal, and shall receive a notification from the employer that he is so liable, and unless he rejoins the union within a week from the date of the notice he shall be dismissed." . ■ ■ ■ -

His Honour said lie could not accept counsel' 3. contention in view of the decision of the majority of the Court in Magner v. Gohns, . . In his opinion there was no jurisdiction to make an award forbidding employers.to employ in any trade affected by such award any person who was not a unionist. Ho was unable to sec. that the Arbitration Court could possibly have jurisdiction to make in an order under section 92 of the Act purporting to amend the award a provision, which it had no jurisdiction to make in the award itself. '"."■'. •■ ■■.'■-

Separate judgments concurring with thi3 view were delivered by the other members of the Court, and it was agreed that a writ .of certiorari . should be granted and the whole order quashed. At 'the hearing Mr. J. F. B. Stevenson appeared for the employers, and Mr F. W. Ongley for the union.