THEATRE FIREMEN

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 70, 24 March 1931, Page 3

THEATRE FIREMEN

WHO EMPLOYS THEM ?

NEW SYSTEM IN VIEW

An ujiplicaliun was made 1.0 Hie Arbitration Courl. yesterday afternoon to dclrrmine whether :in award should be made in the Wellington theatre firemen's dispute, mid if so, whether the Wellington City Council or the thealre proprietors woj-c Ilio respondents. The i Tour!, hold Hint the City Council was not i) respondent, us it did nut employ the firemen, and Hiii-t if men wen; required by I ho thrat.ro licences to bo employed" independent of the trained theatre employees, an award could bo made on the application of the union. Mr. W. J. Mountjoy appeared for the. employers, and Mr. 11. Hanton for the union. In a statement to the Court the Conciliation Commissioner said that the union applied to have certain claims heard by a Conciliation Council. A difficulty had arise which prevented the dispute being dealt with, and the proceedings had been suspended pending some directions from the Court. The representatives of the theatre proprietors had intimated that they did i not intend to take part in the official proceedings, but attended at the Commissioner's solicitation. The City Council wrote desiring that it should not be made- a party to the dispute, as it. did not employ firemen. No business was done at the meeting, and for some, months matters had remained dormant owing to the fact that the theatre, 'proprietors' indicated that they proposed to initiate a new method of preventing danger from lire or panic, and would use their own attendants, dispensing with, the services of the firemen. Up to the end of last year the scheme had not matured, and the firemen were still retained. The union had asked that the dispute should be referred lo the Court to determine who were the respondents. CONDITION OF BYLAWS. Mr. Hanton said that the City Council's bylaws made it a condition of the theatre licences that duly qualified firemen, should bo employed. The Fire Board had given the men a month's notice, but when that expired the men still carried out their duties, and were paid directly by the theatre proprietors. The question was whether the City Council or the proprietors were the respondents. Mr. Justice Frazer pointed out that the City Council's argument was thatit was "obliged by the Municipal Corporations Act to impose the condition in the licence. He held that the City Council was not a party to the dispute. Mr. Hanton said that the Fire Board was not cited. AWARD NOT NECESSARY. Mr. Mountjoy said that the theatre proprietors had been compelled to employ qualified firemen, solely because it was a condition of the licence. In view of the fact that in a short time all special firemen would be replaced by members of the ordinary staffs of theatres under a scheme approved by the City Council, it was contended that the award asked for was not necessary. The persons who would shortly perform the duties of fire panic officers wore already covered by an award. It had not been shown that there was a dispute. I Mr. J. Robertson, secretary of the New Zealand Motion Picture Exhibitors' Association, described the negotiations with the City Council, and said he believed the council know the existing firemen were to be superseded. His Honour said that under the Act duly qualified firemen wore to be employed. 'Had the City Council waived that condition? Witness replied that it was contended Hi at if the theatre proprietors trained their staffs in tire protection they had fulfilled the requirement. His Honour observed that that might bo so, but. it was a question whether the City Council shared that view. Witness: "We understand that is the position." Mr. Mountjoy said he had been led to believe that the council was prepared to accept the trained attendants. It -was entirely for the council to say what should be-on the' licence, said his Honour. An officer of the Fire Brigade said that as far as certain suburban theatres were concerned the City Council apparently regarded tho trained attendants asqualified men. Ho did not know of any alteration in the conditions of the licence. THE COURT'S DECISION. In delivering tho judgment of the Court, his Honour said it had been decided that the City Council was not a respondent, but the Court, was still ia doubt as to the actual position arrived at between the theatre proprietors and the council. Mr. Robertson took the view, and no doubt quite honestly, that the council had agreed to accept the trained attendants in lieu of tho present firemen. The other witness did not go as far as that. In the smaller theatres the City Council was apparently quite prepared to waive the question of duly qualified firemen. But the Court was by no means satisfied from the evidence that the City Coun-. cil was in any wa}' so definite that it would accept some such system as that in all theatres in place of the system of firemen who were firemen in the ordinary sense. It. might be that more of the theatres would be permitted to change over -to the new system. The Court's decision was that if duly qualified firemen were required by the City Council to be employed independent of and quite apart from the trained employees an award could bo made on the application of the union. There was ample evidence that there was a dispute. There might be other reasons why an award should not be made, but they could bo dealt with later. The dispute would be referred back to the Conciliation Council.