JURISDICTION OF THE ARBITRATION COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 12870, 20 July 1906, Page 3

JURISDICTION OF THE ARBITRATION COURT.

The Supreme Court sat at Wellington yesterday afternoon to hear argument in a special case stated for tbe opinion of the Supreme Court by Mr Justice Chap- i man, President of the Court of Arbitra- j tion. The question for the detexmina- i tion of tho Court was as to the jurisdic- i tion of the Arbitration Court to make awards affecting employers beyond the territorial limits of New 'Zealand. The Wei- J lington Cooks and Stewards' Union ob- | ttvined an award on the 27th. of April, ; 1904, and the Wellington Seamen's Union obtained an award on tbe 19tb of March, 1906, to which the Onion Steam Ship Company were a party, prescribing the minimum rake of wages to members of the unions while working on the company's boats. The company's steamers trade to Australia, Fiji, and other places beyond the jurisdiction of New Zealand, and it is alleged that breaches of the award have taken place while in Australian ports, men being forced to keep port watches without being paid overtime. The award in question was only an award for the Wellington industrial district, there being no power to make a colonial award. Tho questions for the consideration of the Supreme Court arc: (1) Could the award be enforced in Australian ports? (2) Was a breach committed when a watch was I ordered to be kept or when the men were paid without overtime payments being made? (o) To what extent did an award become the law of tie ship? Messrs Huddart, Parker, and Co. were also a party to tho award, but their ships are registered in Melbourne. The Court arc also a-sked to define the logal position in , their case. Dr Findlay. appeared for the i ■ New Zealand branch of the Australasian j Federated Seamen's Union, Ml Hindmarsh ' for the Wellington Cooks and Stewards' r 'nion. Mr Levi for the Union Steam Ship Company, and Mr Martin Chapman for Messrs Huddart, Parker, and Co. Dr j Findlay opened his argument with a statement of facts as given above. He then • contended that the Legislature of New : Zealand had power to nass an Act civ- i ing courts jurisdiction over offences com- i mitted in other countries, and if that were | so the Cou.t had power to enforce tie award. The hearing of the case was not concluded.