CLERKS AWARD REFUSED

Evening Star, Issue 17543, 24 December 1920, Page 2

CLERKS AWARD REFUSED

A-emiD 13? BBEEZUfG OFFICES.

COOK? SPOT UUANIMOUS.

The Arbitration Coortfs judgment at Cbristcmxrch. denying an award, in the dispute between the. Christchurch clerks, cashiers, aad office employees and the Canterbury freezing companies was a majority decision, Mr J. A. M'Cnllongh (employees' representative) dissenting Horn it. Toe position shown was that the majority of employees belonged to a guild and opposed an award. " It seemsto us," the Court stated, " that it is quite absurd to suppose, as was suggested at the hearing, that a body of men, who, in order to retain the positions t&ey hold in the service of their employers, must necessarily be of good education and superior intelligence, are not roily .capable of taking the most effective, steps available for securing and protecting their .own interests. The judgment concludes : " Section 72 of fee Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1308, expressly provides that the Court may refuse to make an award if for aay reason it thinks ii ought not to dp so, and a*majority of the Coaii if of opinion, for tie reasons stated, that no award should be made in this case, and the present application is therefore refused." THE MINOKTTY STATEMENT.

Mr M'CuUongh's statement dissenting' from the decision was as under :—" I am firmly convinced that an award is desirable," he says. "The formation of guilds and their subsequent arrangement with employers for improved conditions clearly indicates that there'are grievances calling for settlement. The weakness of the guild form of organisation is apparent from the fact that even though an agreement is arrived at there is no legal tribunal by which such can be enforced, nor any simple method by which employera who were unwilling to accept sucn an agreement could be induced or compelled to do so. The only apparent way in which'such, unwilling employers could be forced to acquiesce in any such settlement would appear to be the old and barbarous method of withholding labor, or the strike weapon. I contend as earnestly as possible that the award is desirable in the interests of the individual workers in the industry, the union, and the guild. Assraoing further that we could refuse to mako an award, we.then would have the spectacle of the tribunal set up to administer the law for the' settlement of industrial disputes giving preference to the views and acceding to the request of an organisation admittedly set up*, to defeat a union, registered under fee law._ The secretary of the gufld in Christchurch states definitely that it was formed for the* express purpose of preventing the Court making an award. I contend .the Court ought, therefore to actiede to the request of the union and make an award embodying the terms agreed to in both Bunedrn and Christchurchy but withholding the preference clause, if thought desirable. In this way both the union and the guild could exist side by side, and probably learn to work together in harmony in a short trmeThey both appear to be actuated by the very laudable desire of benefiting their members by collective bargaining, the union accepting the method prescribed by the Legislature, the gufld refusing to accept the jurisdiction of the tribunal set up to administer the law."