PORT EMPLOYEES

Evening Post, Volume CXXVII, Issue 32, 8 February 1939, Page 12

PORT EMPLOYEES

THE CASUAL WORKERS

DISPUTE CAN MOW PROCEED

The endeavours of the Wellington! Labourers' and Related Trades Industrial Union of Workers to obtain an award covering casual employees of the Wellington Harbour Board were carried a stage further today when the Court of Arbitration delivered oral judgment on a submission made by Mr. P. M. Butler, advocate for the Labourers' Union yesterday, that what purported to be an industrial agreement between the Harbour Board and the New Zealand Harbour Board Employees' Union covering casual workers was invalid. The Court held that the agreement was invalid on -.the grounds that the union's rules precluded it from making agreements affecting other than regular or permanent employees.

On a second submission by Mr. Butler that section 28 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act had not been complied with Mr. Justice O'Regan said the Court held that in view of its decision regarding the agreement there was no need for it tc express its opinion on the second point, but that the Court had gpave doubts whether the agreement could be held to be valid in view of the requirements of section 28 of the Act. He added that the rules of the Labourers' Union obviously covered the board's casual w.orkers. , .

The Court indicated that the dispute between the Labourers' Union and the Harbour Board could now be proceeded with, and agreed with a suggestion by Mr. W. J. Mountjoy, advocate for the Harbour Board, that he should confer with Mr. Butler with a view to arriving at a basis of agreement. Mr. Mountjoy said-he would like to. state that he had had nothing to do with making the agreement that had been declared invalid. ■ CONCILIATION PROCEEDINGS. The dispute between the Labourers' Union and the board began in conciliation council on May 23 last year, when Mr. Mountjoy objected to the proceedings on the grounds that an agreement already existed covering the casual workers whom the union now sought to cover by a separate award. , Mr. Butler contended then that the agreement was invalid, and it was.de- . cided to ask the Court for a direction as to the validity or otherwise of the agreement. -A reply received from the Second : Court of Arbitration stated: "The ! Court is of opinion that it has no . jurisdiction to determine the question . submitted and refers the parties back to the conciliation council to conclude > their proceedings and the matter will ■ then come before the \ Court in the s usual way." The validity of the agreement was ; again challenged at further conciliation ; proceedings on September 12 when' Mr. ; Mountjoy contended that in view of the ; fact that the agreement was still in » force and valid until it had been ' proved by a judicial Court to be ins valid, the Wellington -Harbour Board '> was not in a position to make an agree- . ment with another union for the pur- ■ pose of over-riding the agreement ■ previously entered into with the Har- • bour Board Employees' Union. ! As a result of the deadlock reached ' the whole dispute was referred to.ihe •' Court. •/ '■■'"■ -• ' '■•■'■ ":~ :iV' :;!