CHAIN STORES

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 96, 20 October 1933, Page 7

CHAIN STORES

Desire for separate union

i DECISION RESERVED

lAfterI After hearing further evidence in the fcpeal against the decision of the Reg- • ptrar of Industrial Unions not to regfeter a separate union for the Wellington Chain Stores Society by that pocicty yesterday afternoon, the S rounds of the decision being that there lready existed a Wellington Master Grocers' Industrial "Union of Employers, the Arbitration Court reserved its decision.

The Chain Stores were represented by $Ax. W. J. Mountjoy, and the Master jßrocers' Union by Mr. M. J. Eeardon.

Cross-examined by Mr. Eeardon in fccgard to the alleged difficulty in objtaining supplies owing to the action of jtlio master grocers, B. Sutherland Stated that the master grocers throughinut New Zealand, in combination with ifhe merchants, fixed the prices of cerjlain supplies to give a certain large tc- ( tail profit, and unless this profit wa« (obtained, the supplies wore not stocked. £ Mr. Justice Frazer said that as the Jf^ct dealt with industrial matters, he Jivas of opinion that commercial hostility jßould not be treated alone as a ground jiEor a separate registration. He suggested that the divergence between jihe parties' interest's1 necessary to secure a separate union could with advantage be restricted to the industrial .differences. ,

Mr. Eeardon, addressing the Court, isaid that this was the first instance he knew of where bodies of employers had tried to get separate registration, and therefore the applications of workers' unions for* separate registration proved the only parallel. The first case of the kind was that of a local seamen's union in conflict with an ostensibly Australia-wide organisation. The Wellington Union did not accept the terms ©f the award, and a branch of the larger organisation was installed in Wellington. The local union asked for registration separately. The Court in that case was of opinion that the diversity of interest could not be reconciled. He submitted that the differences in «that case, however, were very unlike the commercial troubles of the appellant.

Having cited other eases, he called Mr. H. J. Stott, secretary of the Master Grocers' Union, who- stated that the tmion had never refused any master grocer membership. He could not remember an application from any group palling itself the chain stores, though 'certain of its members had attended tneetings at the request of the union, but they had never become members, fibme years ago the chain stores' representatives were invited to attend a tneeting to discuss matters. 1 That no disabilities would exist for Iho chain stores through joining the Master Grocers' Union was stressed by Mr. Eeardon, who contended that a union of employers or employees could cliscuss only matters under the I.C. and A. Act, and wages and hours could not be. held to' constitute diversity of interest, as these wore matters the Court was constantly dealing with when making agreements. Had the attempt made by the chain stores to secure a separate award been successful, tho existing award would have been conBiderably affected. .It would have meant that the chain store employees would have signed an agreement under the- most unfavourable present-day conditions to the detriment of other agreements. Siyh a situation was never contemplated by the Act. The question before the Court, said Mr. Mountjoy, was whether there was sufficient diversity of interest or other substantial reasons. The evidence showed that the divergence of interest had reached a serious trade hostility. A separately registered union was most jiecessary for the Chain Stores Society jn the Wellington district. Tho Court, reserved its decision.