WATERSIDE AWARD

Evening Star, Issue 19412, 22 November 1926, Page 4

WATERSIDE AWARD

ims OF NON-UNIONIST EMPLOYMENT INTRICATE ISSUE INV3LVEO [Pee United Peess Association.] AUCKLAND, November 20. With a view to obtaining an interpretation of a clause in the waterside workers’ award, an action was brought against Leonard and Dinghy, Ltd., stevedores, at Auckland, in the Arbitration Court this morning by the inspector of awards. Nominally the plaintiff claimed to recover from defendant a sum of £lO as penalty for an alleged breach of the award. On hearing the circumstances, Mr Justice Frazer said the question or penalty was not really at issue, as he undei stood the parties desired an interpretation. The facts, which were admitted, were that the defendant company on September 14, 1926, employed two non-union workers on work coming within the scope of the award, and failed to permit them to continue working till work ceased for that day. The Inspector (Mr F. F. Grieve) said a call was made for labor, and, there being insufficient unionists offering, the non-unionists were employed. On the following day, without making a call, the same men were allowed to start work on the job, but later hi the morning, unionists offering their services, the non-unionists were put off, and members of the union were put on in their place. Mr Lowrie, who represented defendants, explained that on the second day there was a call for incidental label, and as unionists did not it was thought futile to call a second time for labor for the job on which the nonunionists had been employed on the previous day. When, on the second day, unionists offered their services at about 9 a.m., the non-unionists were discharged in order that unionists might be employed. Defendants acted under the misconception that they were compelled to employ unionists. Properly, the non-unionists, having once been started were entitled to continue until the end of the day, or till work was finished on that day. “The point is that, whether employed rightly or wrongly in the first place, once started these non-unionists were entitled to a full day’s pay,” saidHis Honor.

After considering the matter, the court decided that the question was complicated by the further question ns to what would have happened had a call been made. Although it was possible that the court could answer the immediate question without reference to the rights of unionists under the preference clause, it was felt that, without dealing with otner matters somewhat intricately mixed up with it, the court might lay itself open to misunderstanding. Mr Justice Frazer suggested that the inspector, the union, aqd the employers should make joint application for an interpretation on the basis of questions relating to the call: —Should it have been made on the second day, and what form should it have taken? The further question at issue in the present case could he added. It was resolved to follow this course.