DECLARED INVALID

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 120, 24 May 1933, Page 10

DECLARED INVALID

AGREEMENT QUASHED

BUTCHERS' DISPUTE

PREFERENCE QUESTION

In tlio Supremo Court today his Honour. Mr. Justice MacGrogor made an order that a writ of ceitiorafi bo issued quashing an agreement recently sanctioned by the Conciliation Council in "Wellington in an industrial dispute between the- Butchers' Union and certain master butchers. The parties in the case today were William Tunley and other master butchers v. P. Hally, Conciliation Commissioner, and J. E. C. Leckie and other assessors. Mr. J. P. B. Stevenson appeared in support of the motion, and Mr. Moir appeared to oppose the application. It was stated in the affidavits submitted to the Court that after the agreement had been arrived at in the Conciliation Council the agreement was filed in tho offico of the Clerk of Awards at Wellington. The document purported to be an industrial agreement made between the workers'.union and master butchers in tho Wellington industrial district. The affidavit filed* on behalf of the objecting master butchers stated that they employed upwards of 75 per cent, of the workers employed in the industry in the Wellington industrial district and the alleged agreement had been mado without their consent. Mr. Moir admitted that the agreement could not be supported, as it was made for a longer period than the statuto authorised. He said he would therefore agree to the issue of the writ of certiorari quashing the agreement on that ground. His Honour said in that case he was prepared to quash the agreement without further argument. • _ Mr. Stevenson remarked- that there ■was more in this matteKthan the, mere question of time. ,- 1 / Mr. Moir agreed that clause lo or the agreement was contrary to section 28 of the statute—that it was ultra vires—and therefore he consented lo the agreement being declared invalid. His Honour: You agree that the industrial agreement is invalid? Mr. Moir: Yes, on the ground that it purports to extend tho agreement for a period of more than three years.. "INJUSTICE AND OPPRESSION." Mr. Stevenson said that the trouble in this ease arose out of the amendment in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act made by the Act passed in 1932.. The object of the amending Act was that parties should arrive at a settlement in. the Conciliation Council by conciliation. The whole object of the amending Act was to take industrial disputes away from the Arbitration Court and substitute conciliation. Tho result had been, however, that the Act which was intended to be a channel for conciliation Was really now being used by workers' unions as a weapon of injustice and oppression. In the Conciliation Council proceedings, said Mr. Stevenson, the union appointed four assessors, and certain employers who were cited also appointed four assessors^ The method that was being adopted was for the unions to go to some small employer, or four or five small employers, and commence proceedings. ■ Tho* affidavit showed that the employers^ cited ; onjy employed a few men. Then the union joined to the employers cited other parties, including the great majority of employers— firms who employed, as in the present case, 75 per cent, of the workers in tho industry; yet these large employers had no representation in tho Conciliation Council. These large employers were not allowed to be heard; although they could attend. The agreement thus arrived at was asserted to bo binding on tho large employers.' NO COMPULSORY UNIONISM. Mr. Stevenson referred his Honour to paragraph 13 of the alleged agreement, and said that this clause endeavoured to impose compulsory unionism upon the industry. The words ill the elauso objected to were as follows: "It shall bo a condition under this agreement that all work required to be performed shall be "executed by a member of the union." Counsel pointed out that the Full Court had, held on various occasions, that any such clause in an industrial agreement was not authorised by the Act, was ultra vire3, and invalidated any award or agreement in which it was inserted. The Act gave preference to unionists, but did not impose compulsory unionism on any industry. He cited, legal authorities in support of this statement. Counsel also said that one pro-: vision in the alleged agreement stated what should fee the closing hours of butchers' shops. Neither tho Conciliation Council nor/the Arbitration Court had power-to administer the Shops and Offices Act. ■■■■.'■ < After further argument, his Honour ordered that a writ of certiorari should issue quashing the industrial agreement, with costs and disbursements against all the defendants except the Conciliation Commissioner and- the Clerk of Awards.