SLAUGHTERMEN’S DISPUTE

Evening Star, Issue 15136, 18 March 1913, Page 8

SLAUGHTERMEN’S DISPUTE

AN IMPORTANT DECISION. At Wellington yesterday the Arbitration Court filed their decision in the appeal lodged by the Ngahauranga Slaughtermen’s Union against the refusal of the Registrar to grant them registration on the ground that the members could conveniently become members of the existing Wellington Slaughtermen's Union. “It can scarcely be suggested," said Mr Justice Sim, in the course of the Court’s decision, “ that there is any substantial diversity of interest between the two unions. Each exists, it may be assumed, in order to obtain for its members the most favorable conditions of employment, and the main point, of difference between the two is as to the best means to be adopted for attaining this end. We think, therefore, that the union are not entitled to succeed on this ground. The question, then, is whethei appellants have established any other substantial reason for obtaining separate registration. The appellants comprise the large majority of the workers who are now engaged in the work of slaughtering in the district. Of all the slaughtermen now engaged at the works at Ngahauranga and Petone onlv three are members of the Wellington Union. All the rest are members of the appellant union, who have made an agreement with two Wellington meat companies as to wages and other conditions of employment, and if they obtain registration are willing to have the terms agreed upon embodied in an industrial agreement or an award. The appellant union appears, therefore, to be desirous of obtaining registration under the Arbitration Act in order to take advantage of provisions of that Act. The Wellington Union, on the other hand, have not shown anv such desire. They cancelled their registration under the Act in January last in order to ~'ct rid of the industrial agreement made in May, 1910, and in order that on the expiration .of the term of that agreement its members might engage in a strike without incurring any penalty. It made no attempt before the cancellation of its registration to have the dispute with the meat companies settled under the provisions of the Act, nor did it make any such attempt after it had again obtained registration on February 4. In these circumstances, the reasonable inference to be drawn is that the Wellington Union obtained ugm registration not for the purpose of making use of the machinery of the Act to settle their disputes, but for the . purpose of blocking, if possible, the registration of any other slaughtermen’s union. The object of the Arbitration Act is to provide, for the peaceful settlement of all industrial disputes by the machinery of conciliation and arbitration, and it would b p , intolerable if the existence of a union who have played fast and loose with the arbitration system, as the Wellington Union have done, should bar the registrav” I°l anot,lei ’ I,nion the members of which have a bona fide desire to use the machinery. The slaughtermen concerned should not be forced, we think, to accept the alternative of joining the Wellington Union or of being deprived of the benefits of conciliation and arbitration. There is the further objection that, under their rules, the Wellington Union are in effect a close corporation. Membership can only be obtained on proving to the satisfaction . , e esecu^lve that the applicant is a suitable person to become ■ a member thereof. It is difficult to believe that the members of the appellant union are regarded by the executive of the Wellington union as persons suitable to become members and evidence called bv the appellant union goes to show that there is ill-feeling towards the members of that union on the part of some, at least, of the members of the Wellington Union. We think, therefore, that for these reasons the Wellington Union are not a union to which members of the appellant union can conveniently belong, and that the appellants are entitled to succeed in their appeal. The Court reports to the Registrar that, after making full inquiries, in its opinion the Registrar’s refusal to register Ihe appellant union should be waived.” -Ir M Cullough (employees’ representatiye in the Court) does not concur with W J " P d ®r nt ’ thinks that the n'embers of the appellant union can conveniently belong to the Wellington Union.