CLERICAL WORK

Evening Post, Volume CXXII, Issue 80, 1 October 1936, Page 10

CLERICAL WORK

FACTORY STAFFS

COMMISSIONER'S RULING

A CROSS-CITATION

A cross-citation filed by Mr. A. W. Nisbet on behalf of the Wellington District Paint, "Varnish, and Allied Products Manufacturers' Industrial Union of Employers and other industrial unions of employers led to strong objection being voiced by Mr. W. J. Mountjoy, secretary of the Wellington Employers' Association, when the Conciliation Commissioner iMr. M. J. Reardon) sat today to hear the second section of the dispute brought by the Wellington Clerical Workers' Union of Workers. Mr. Mountjoy contended that the application filed by Mr. Nisbut was a new and separate citation, that it was not in conformity with the law, and that all the persons named in the applicaI tion had not signified their concurrence to being named as applicants, and that therefore the application was a misrepresentation of the true position and should be held to be invalid. He further contended that if the citation were acted upon it would in effect create a ludicrous position. Notwithstanding further comment and submissions By Mr. Mountjoy, "the Commissioner held to his opinion that the citation was .valid and that he should accept it. An adjournment at Mr. Nisbet's -suggestion was taken after this until this afternoon, a start not having been made with the hearing of the actual dispute. The Commissioner said that the first to approach him on the matter was Mr. Nisbet with a cross-citation as distinct I from the counter-proposals which he i had received from Mr. Mountjoy. It seemed to him that he had already appointed the assessors because before he gave a man a date for a hearing he had to satisfy himself that his assessors had been nominated according to the law and the/fact of his signing his nomination carried with it the ncceptance of his assessors. MR. MOUNTJOY'S CONTENTIONS. j Mr. Mountjoy said he objected strongly to the citation filed ;by Mr. Nisbet. After elaborating upon his objections, Mr. Mountjoy contended that the application, being without the authority o£ all the applicants named therein, must be held to be invalid, as it was not in accordance- with the requirements of the Act. It was submitted that in filing such an application little consideration had been shown to many employers who were in a similar position to ihose for whom the application had been filed. The claims amounted to claims for a specialised award covering clerical workers employed in factories and warehouses attached, and it appeared that the applicants had viewed only the effect upon their own organisations, without considering the detrimental -effect of such upon employers in general. It was submitted that the applicants in Mr. Nisbet's citation were not representative of the majority of the employers ' employing clerical workers in factories and warehouses attached. The majority of such employers, it was submitted, were of the opinion that the general clerical workers' award would fit in with their requirements and strongly opposed any distinction between clerical workers in factories as compared with clerical workers employed by them in the mercantile branches of their establishments. Several times Judges of tho Court of Arbitration had refused to make separate awards for branches of industries. Mr. Mountjoy proceeded to refer to letters he had received from the Union Steam Ship Co. and others. A POINT OF ORDER. Mr. Nisbet raised a point: of order against Mr. Mountjoy's statement, which he said made all sorts of. wild allegations against the organisation he represented. Mr. Mountjoy had not even had. the courtesy to supply him with a copy of the statement, let alone let him see it beforehand. He also had received a letter from the Union Co. He had not appeared "in a case yet in which the list of parties had not needed some amendment. The Commissioner said he was not yet in a position to deal with the list. of parties. He allowed Mr. Mountjoy to proceed. Mr. Mountjoy read three letters from firms named as parties in the crosscitation, all stating that they were not aware they had! been listed as parties. A number 'of others, he said, had told him that they had not consented or assented in any way to be parties to the dispute brought by the cross-cita-tion. If the cross-citation were acted upon and a separate award made it would lead to a ludicrous position because different employees of the same employer would be working under different awards. The Commissioner: How do you get away from the fact, Mr. Mount] oy, that the law compels me to fix a date so soon as the papers are put before me in proper order. ... Am I to be the judge as to whether section 108 has been complied with. I submit not. "I would say this, Sir," replied Mr. Mountjoy. "You had already a citation before you and a date fixed for a hearing of the dispute with 931 parties and 18 industrial unions and you have no right—l won't say that, Sir—you as

Conciliation Commissioner should use your judgment ' and first decide whether you- are acting in a right and proper manner in fixing a date for another separate dispute for the same date and time. Unless you are satisfied that the dispute covers the same persons as the original dispute set down for hearing and covers the same workers, then I submit you have no right to set it down for hearing along with a dispute, which is a comprehensive dispute. I say a restricted dispute cannot take the place of a comprehensive dispute. PREVIOUS RULINGS. The Commissioner said that Mr. Mountjoy must know that Mr. Justice Sim, Mr. Justice Stringer, and Mr.. Justice Frazer had always held that the proper course for the parties to a dispute to pursue was to proceed by way of cross-citation' if it was their intention to introduce new. matter. In other words, counter-proposals were merely proposals that ran counter to the original proposals of the applicant party. If a secretary of a union of employers registered under the I.C. and A. Act approached him as Conciliation Commissioner and stated that he wished to introduce new matter into a dispute and he asked to be told the proper course to "pursue, his answer was to proceed by way of cross-cita-tion. The secretary then proceeded by way of cross-citation and called upon him to give him a date and sign the papers. It seemed to him that his duty there under section 41, sub-section- 9 of the Act, was definite. Assuming, said the Commissioner, that no cross-citation had been filed and Mr. Nisbet and those he represented had asked for representation, the Commissioner would be the sole judge of who should be assessors. Four assessors might have been nominated by Mr. Mountjoy and four by Mr. Nisbet. He would.have been required to select four assessprs and he would have been obliged to consider industrial unions registered under the I.C. and A. Act. "XO NEW MATTER." Mr. Mountjoy said he was secretary of an industrial association—an association that was much larger than tha one represented by Mr. Nisbet. Mr. Nisbet had not introduced new matter because the parties he represented were.covered by the counter-proposals. The counter-proposals had been prepared at the request of a large number of employers who had clerical workers in factories and probably covered more such workers than the crosscitation. Mr. Reardon said he had to set up a council of conciliation and there was a dispute as to who should act as assessors. He had appointed four assessors.' Unless they were prepared to withdraw he considered they must stand. Mr. Mountjoy submitted that that was not the position and suggested the Commissioner should refer the question to the Arbitration Court. Mr. Reardon said he had already set up a council. Mr. Mountjoy: I say you have not. Mr. Reardon said he held that a council had been set up but he wanted to clarify the position and see that no injustice was done. Mr.- Mountjoy said a grave injustice would be done if the parties to the cross-citation were allowed to make an award governing employers of clerical workers not represented by the assessors. Mr. Reardon said whatever the council might decide any representations the parties represented by Mr. Mountjoy made would come under review by the Court. It had been decided in several cases, Mr. Mountjoy said, that it was not right for the few to make an award governing many. If the council was set up 3s the Commissioner claimed it would, get nowhere and its deliberations were bound to be abortive. COMMISSIONER ADAMANT. The Commissioner maintained that he had carried out what .the law required him to do. Mr. F. P. Walsh (president of the Wellington Clerical Workers' Union) asked whether if an agreement was reached it would be binding on all the parties cited by the union. COMMISSIONER NAMES DISPUTE. Mi*. Mountjoy: I should apply to the Court of Arbitration to nullify the whole proceedings. Mr. Walsh said that if that was the position they would only be wasting their time. It appeared :to him that Mr. Nisbet was in. a position akin to that of the small ship owner who wanted to come in and get a separate agreement. That was not tolerated in maritime circles. Mr. Nisbet contended that Mr. Mountjoy had made a lot of wild statements, to which Mr. Mountjoy retorted that he could easily substantiate everyone of them. Mr. :W. N. Pharazyn, in reply to the Commissioner, claimed that, the Clerical Workers' Union was interested in the argument to the extent that it had undertaken much work in preparation for the case and that many people were interested in getting some improvement in their conditions. "So far as lean see," he added, "this thing is going to be turned from something fairly comprehensive into a small; section concern which is going to delay us and make the thing farcical." The Commissioner said he was not the person to decide that. Addressing Mr. Mountjoy he said he proposed shortly to nominate the council and Mr. Mountjoy could make any representations to the council he thought proper. The only difference would-be that instead of acting as assessors those he represented would be exercising all the rights of respondents. Mr. Mountjoy said that was no use to those he represented. As representatives of the majority of the employers they were not prepared to sit

there as subordinates. They would withdraw and should the dispute reach the Arbitration Court would oppose it strongly. A little later the Commissioner named the dispute as being the Wellington Clerical Workers' Union and the Wellington Clothing Manufacturers' Industrial Unionof Employers and others, with the council to bs as follows: —For the applicants: Messrs. W. N. Fharazyn, F. P. Walsh, A. J. Merchant, and Miss M. E. Guilfoile. For the respondents: H. C. Sayers, H. H. Higgins, W. Stevens, and A. W. Nisbet, and with himself as Commissioner. Mr. Nisbet said his assessors' would like to -meet Mr. Mountjoy and those with him, and proceedings were adjourned until this afternoon. AN OFFER REJECTED. When the council sat this afternoon Mr. Nisbet expressed regret at the delay which had occurred. If the council carried on as constituted at the present time it would be restricted to dealing with those unions and firms, mentioned in his cross-citation. That,1 he knew, was not the wish of the other side, and partly to meet the wishes of the workers' union and partly to meet the wishes of the respondents, he called his assessors together and two agreed to stand down to enable the Commissioner to appoint two assessors from the Employers' Association. Had that been done the cross-citation and tne counter-proposals could have been taken conjointly. With Mr. Higgins he waited on Mr. Mountjoy, but the proposition was not acceptable to him, the Employers'' Association taking the view that the council was illegally constituted. The Commissioner said he thought the respondents had rather put themselves out of Court. Mr. Mountjoy, who came in at this stage, said the Employers' Association had no option but to. reject the offer. The council had been determined before the adjournment, and the Commissioner had appointed the assessors. The Employers' Association .had been given no opportunity of representation on the council. In the opinion of the Employers' Association the council as constituted was not a legal council to hear the original dispute. Mr. Higgins pointed out that Mr. Mountjoy had been told that the Commissioner would be prepared to agree to the terms of the offer made to him. Mr. Mountjoy said his assessors were not prepared to take part in a council which was not in accordance with the law. That was the reason for not accepting the ofEer. The Commissioner said he thought no useful purpose could be served by pursuing the question. Mr. Mountjoy remained in the room, and the council as constituted proceeded to deal'with the list of parties. Mr. Nisbet said the main object of the firms he represented was to make provision for clerical workers who did not come within the jurisdiction of the Shops and Offices Act, (Proceeding.)