CLOTHING TRADE

Evening Post, Volume CXVII, Issue 95, 23 April 1934, Page 11

CLOTHING TRADE

UNION APPLICATIONS

INTERESTING DECISIONS

OUDEES KEFUSED

Applications by employees to add parties in the Auckland district to the Wellington, Canterbury, and Otttgo Clothing Trades Award, and to the Duncdm Shirt, "White, and Silk Workers' Award, arc refused in reserved Arbitration Court judgments of Mr. Justice rimer. The application first mentioned was by the 'Now Zealand Federated Clothing Trades Employees' Industrial Association of Workers to extend the Wellington, Canterbury, and Otago and Southland Clothing Trades .Employees' Award, dated April 29, 1933, so as to join and bind1 certain employers in the northern industrial district who are connected with or engaged in the same industry as that to which the award relates. APPLIED TOO LATE. "The application is made under section U2 (1) (b), but it is not clear | whether it is intended'to come within tho second or the fourth sub-paragraph of that paragraph," says his Honour. "The point, however, is unimportant, because the jurisdiction of the Court, in either case, is limited ... to tho extension of awards during their currency. The currency of the award in question has expired, though.by virtue of section S9 (1) (d) tho award still remains in force. The currency of an award is expressly defined by tho latter section as the specified term for which it is made. Oneo that term lias expired, the- Court has no power to make an order extending the operation of tho award. The application is accordingly refused.'' The other application was by the Duncdm Tailoresses' and other I'ciu.ile Clothing Trade Employees' Industrial Union of Workers to extend the Otago and Southland Shirt, White, and Silk Workers' award, dated November ,23, VJ'Ad, so as to join and bind certain (•!np!oYoro in the Northern Industrial UWtiiei:'. QUESTION OF COMPETITION. '•'As in tho ease of the application vesper-!ing the Wellington, Canterbury, and Olacco and (.Southland . Clothing Trade? Employees' award." says his Honour, "it is not clear whether tho application, is intended to come within the second or the fourth sub-paragraph ..f wtion 92 (1) (b) of tho Industrial j Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1025. | It1 it conies within the second sub-para-graph, the applicant must prove (a) tlmt. the award relates* to a trade or ins.inufi'tture the products of which enter into competition in any market \viih those, manufactured in another ia- ! ilustrinl district, and (b) that a uiajorI ity of the employers engaged and of die unions of-workers concerned in the tnaii.; or manufacture arc bound by the award. On the figures submitted, it in obvious that condition (b) has not been complied with, and therefore the application under that sub-paragraph must, fail. "If tlie application comes within the fourth sub-paragraph it -is necessary to prove that tho products of the trade or manufacture enter into competition in any market with those manufactured in the industrial district wherein the award is in force. It is admitted that the products of the industry in the Northern Industrial District are in competition in the diffeerut New Zealand markets with those manufactured in the Otago and Southland Industrial District, but, as Mr. Justice Chapman, pointed out in a similar case, the mere fact of the existence of competition is not a ground for making the order sought. There is no evidence of '-. an increased hold over southern . markets having been gained by the northern manufacturers, or of a displacement of southern goods by northern goods. One northern manufacturer reports a 3 per cent, increase in sales outside the Northern Industrial ■ District, while others report decreases. MATTER OF WAGES. "It is suggested that the absence of award restrictions in the Northern Industrial District has led to unfair competition with southern manufacturers who are -bound by awards. Beturns submitted by the northern manufacturers, however, showed that they were paying higher wages in the aggregate than they could be compelled to pay under the Wellington award, which is "still in force and binding on Wellington manufacturers. '"'Tho absence of < a fixed ratio of juuiors'io journeywomeii in the Northern Industrial District was also mentioned as leading to unfair competition with southern manufacturers. The Wellington and Otago and : Southland awards, however, provide for no limitation of the number 'of juniors, the only difference being that an apprenticeship is required. There, may be opportunity for unfair competition by northern manufacturers against southern manufacturers, but there is absolutely no evidence that unfair competition in fact exists. On the other hand, the returns put in by the northern manufacturers show that on the whole'their trade- in southern markets has decreased in volume. ; j POSITION OF EMPLOYEES. "The powers given to the Court by section 92 to extend a district award so as to bind manufacturers outside the district for which the award is made are described as 'special' powers. They arc an extension of the general power of tho Court to settle disputes between employers and unions of workers, and may be exercised regardless of the existence of any dispute of that nature. They aro given expressly in order to enable the Court to check unfair competition between two bodies of manufacturers. "In this connection it is worthy to noto that the southern manufacturers took no part in the application, nor was any evidence tendered on their behalf. To quote Mr. Justice Chapman again, 'it is almost needless to say that the great power thus given to the Court ought to bo exercised with caution.' ..AVhen tho southern manufacturers for whose benefit the provision has been enacted have adopted a perfectly neutral attitude in regard to these proceedings, the Court cannot properly invoke section 92 for the purpose only of providing award conditions for the Northern Industrial District as desired by the Otago and Southland and Northern Industrial District Unions of Workers, against the ■wishes of the Northern Industrial District employers, who have had no voice in the framing of the conditions of tho award. A further objection exists in the fact that the Wellington award differs in some material respects from the Otago and Southland award, and the Northern Industrial District manufacturers might quite reasonably claim that if they were to be bound by the I Otago and Southland award they would be at a disadvantage in relation to Wei-1 lington manufacturers. For these reasons tho application must be refused."