RIVAL UNIONS

Evening Post, Volume CXXVI, Issue 63, 12 September 1938, Page 10

RIVAL UNIONS

BRISK ARGUMENT

HARBOUR BOARD LABOURERS

EMPLOYERS' STAND

n When a conciliation council was cone stituted this morning to deal with the ci adjourned dispute between the Wellington Harbour Board labourers (other c than general hands) and the Harbour c Board, a. deadlock was immediately '■- reached, the representatives of the '- board refusing to consider making an L" agreement with the Wellington Lab- [_ ourers' Union, the applicant, on the •- grounds that it already had an agreer- ment with the Wellington Harbour I Board Employees' Union, and that Z until that agreement expired in Janus ary next, it could make no other agreet ment. „ The same point arose when the mat--1 ter was first brought before a cont ciliation council in May last, and it f was then decided to ask the,. Second l Court of Arbitration for a direction, t This direction had since been received, £ but as the Court considered that it had - no jurisdiction in the matter and sug--7 gested that it be referred back to con--7 ciliation, the position was not materi--1 ally altered: 2 A brisk argument developed, Mr. P. 2 M. Butler, advocate for the applicant union, claiming that the council should J proceed to deal with the dispute in the i ordinary way, but the representatives i of the Harbour Board standing firm in 5 their contention that they could make no agreement with another union I while the present agreement with their J own employees' union was in force. r It was finally decided to refer the ■ whole question to the Court and - allow it to make an award if it con- ■ sidered it advisable to do so. Mr. W. J. Mountjoy, advocate for the • board, said that the position had not • changed since the conciliation proceed- ! ings were first commenced? The Court ; had said that it had no jurisdiction, 5 and the board considered that since it 1 had a legal and binding agreement with • one union, it could not make another : with a second union. It therefore ' wished the whole question of the award ! to be referred to the Court. Mr. Butler pointed out that the ; Court's ruling suggested that the mat--1 ter should be again dealt with in con--1 ciliation. He had recently discussed the position with the registrar of the ; Second Court and had been informed ■ by him that the Court was quite agreejable to the conciliation proceedings beting allowed to continue preparatory to making an award in the usual way. He suggested that if the board was in "doubt as to the actual intentions of the Court, a joint telegram should be sent from the two parties asking it to give a definite indication as to whether the present conciliation proceedings should go on or not. Mr. Mountjoy conferred with his assessors on the point, but on his return said that they were not agreeable to sending a telegram as suggested. They already had an agreement, and they wished to stand by it. . Mr. Butler: That really means that you are not prepared to investigate the possibility of proceeding with the dispute. The Conciliation Commissioner (Mr. M. J. Reardon): Their attitude is that no dispute exists. Mr. Butler said that it was certain that when a new award was made it should increase the present rates by a penny an hour. If the board insisted on waiting for the Court, the men would be held up for a long period before they got the higher wages. He contended that the board was simply trying to avoid paying the higher hourly rate until it was forced to do so. Mr. Reardon: I think the employers' assessors are within their rights in maintaining that they should respect the existing agreement. Mr. Butler: We are not concerned : with the existing agreement. In any case, I am prepared to wager five pounds that it is invalid. They are simply taking advantage of a mean technicality. Mr. Reardon: I don't think that is so. Mr. Butler: Then shall we say a small advantage rather than a mean one. Mr. Mountjoy said that the board was not prepared to say that its present agreement with its employees' ; union was wrong simply because an- : other union came along and said so. ■ Mr. Butler was going on to refer to ; the agreement with the Harbour • Board Employees' Union, claiming ; that it had accepted a low hourly rate, when he was interrupted by Mr. M. Wall, secretary of the Harbour , Board Employees' Union, who was , present as an interested party. Mr. • Wall claimed that Mr. Butler should j be called to order and that he was 3 making statements simply for propa- , ganda purposes. , Mr. Butler: Mr. Wall has-been secre- ! tary only for a short while and he 1 does not know very much about it. 1 Mr. Wall: Don't you ever stop to ( breathe, Mr. Butler? ( Mr. Butler contended that Mr. Wall had no standing in the council, and j moved that they go into committee, , but on a show of hands being taken, ' the motion was lost, the Commissioner voting with the board's assessors , against it. , Mr. Butler then asked whether the , board would be prepared to guarantee that when the new wages were fixed by the Court, they should be retrospective to the commencement ' of the conciliation proceedings. Mr. * Mountjoy said that he could not com- ' mit the board to any such guarantee. ' After considerable argument, Mr. * Butler asked the employers to ex- 3 pedite the hearing by allowing it to, be heard by the Court in Auckland, and when the employers objected to ; this on the ground of expense, offered to pay their representatives' fares to Auckland to enable finality to be reached. Mr. F. W. Reed (employers' assessor): I cannot give you an answer to that. Mr. Butler: You are just holding the thing up in order to keep the wages down. I Mr. Mountjoy said that this was c not so. The board was perfectly en- i titled to adopt the stand it had done, a The application of the employees r. was then referred, in toto, to the t Court. ;; i