BUTCHERS' DISPUTE

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 2, 3 July 1933, Page 11

BUTCHERS' DISPUTE

AUCKLAND AGREEMENT

DISSENTING PARTIES

'A case stated by the Judge of the Arbitration Court, a sequel to the purported .settlement of a dispute; among Auckland butchers, came before the Court of Appeal today. The main question for determination was whether an industrial agreement purporting to settle the dispute must be agreed to by all the parties in the dispute or whether a Council of Conciliation can make an agreement binding dissenting parties. Existence of the agreement was admitted by the defendants, B. and W. Hellaby, Ltd., of Auckland, but it was contended that the agreement was not validly made. George Francis Grieve, inspector of awards, Auckland, was cited as the plaintiff. , The. Chief Justice (Sir ,'Michael Myers), Mr. Justice Herdman, Mn Justice. Blair, and Mr. Justice Kennedy were on the Bench. - ' . l Mr. A. H. Johnstone and Mr. W. E. Tuck 'appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. J. F. B. Stevenson, with Mr: E. P. Towle, for the defendant. The case came before the Arbitration Court as a result of proceedings being instituted against the defendant for the recovery of a penalty for an alleged breach ;, of the Auckland Butchers' Industrial Agreement, dated May 3, 1933. The alleged breach was that the defendant employed a worker between May 20 and May 26, 1933, as a roundsman and failed to pay him not less than the minimum rate of wages prescribed by the agreement for such work. The defendant admitted that it had committed the acts complained of, but contended that no offence had been committed on the grounds (aY that the agreement was not a valid agreement and that no settlement of the dispute had in fact been made; and (b) that the agreement was Void because it contained terms which were ultra vires, as being in excess of the jurisdiction of the Conciliation Council. The opposite view was taken on behalf of the.plaintiff., .' , ■. ■,■- In outlining the case for the defendant, Mr. Stevenson said that the agreement was made on a!n application filed by certain employers who employed only' 'one-third of the labour. They joined the union and the other' employers, including E, and W, Hellaby, Ltd.,. as the respondents. . ';' , The Chief Justice: You say it is a ease of the tail wagging the dog 3 • Mr. Stevenson: Certainly, sir. "When the applicant employers fib their application in the first place they nominate their four- assessors," continued counsel, "and- the respondents are asked to- nominate their four assessors. ' Now, in: this particular1 case and in other cases before the Conciliation Council, it has been the practice and it has been ruled that tho respond-; en't union have the right; so they say, to nominate, the. other four., and ~the respondent employers have iib say at aii."v ■ ' -■■'■■• .''. ':■' , ■ Mr. Stevenson contended in"the first place that the Council which heard, the dispute was not validly constituted. His second point was that even if -it were' properly constituted what,, the Council did was not binding against R. and W. Hellaby, Ltd.) who had not agreed to the settlement. On his submission the Council hud' acted as a Court of Arbitration, and not as a Con-, ciliation Council. ■ . ■•'.' '~; .•'

Legal argument, had not concluded at the time of.going;.to,"press. .