ARBITRATION COURT

Evening Star, Issue 23000, 4 July 1938, Page 9

ARBITRATION COURT

DEFINITION SOUGHT The Arbitration Court—Mr Justice O’Regan, Mr W. Cecil Prime, and Mr A. L. Monteith.—sat this morning to hear matter affecting the Stock and Station Agents’ Clerical Award. Mr A. S. Cookson appeared for the employing firms, Mr K. Miller represented the Otago and Southland Stock and Station Agents’ Clerical Workers Industrial Union of Workers, and Mr R. Herbert represented the New Zealand Clerical and Office Staff Employees Industrial Union of Workers. Mr Miller said that a complete agreement had been arranged between the parties, and he asked that the settlement before the court be made into an award. The only omission to which the attention of the court was drawn related to clause I. of the settlement, which did not state the industry to which the award should apply. The omission had been an accidental one. Mr A. S. Cookson concurred with the request of Mr Miller. Mr Herbert said he did not wish to raise any objection to the request made by , the association, provided there was a* definition of the workers. In answer to Mr Monteith Mr Herbert said that the stock and station industry meant the salexif stations, and of livestock on behalf of a third party, and nothing else. The speaker asked that the clause relating to the workers concerned should be strictly defined as to whom it applied. He understood that the union intended to cover the clerks working in any capacity, and asked the court to insert a clause to the effect that the award was applicable to clerks and office assistants, principally employed in the stock and station agency. It was claimed by the speaker that the award could only cover the workers engaged in the occupations to which he had referred, and said that some firms dealt in a variety of commodities in addition to being engaged in the stock and station business, and the clerks dealing with this work could not be termed stock and station agency clerks. Ho asked that the onus of proof regarding the occupation of such clerks should rest on the employers. Evidence was given by Harold Eugene Kimble, secretary of the Southland Clerks and Office Workers’ Union.

Mr Prime said that the question of overtime was covered by the award. I’he matter before the court was the extent to which the union should operate.

His Honour pointed out that the court had to decide a purely legal proposition, and had to define the stock and station agency business. He did not think any evidence could help. Mr Herbert said that he would not, under the circumstances, call evidence. Mr Miller said .that Mr Herbert had asserted that the only business carried on by genuine stock and station agents was concerned with the selling of stations and livestock. Perhaps he would also include farms. Mr Herbert said he would not include farms, and His Honour explained that the court realised that the stock and station companies carried on other work.

After the court had questioned Mr Miller regarding the operations of certain firms. Mr Cookson said that the recommendations before the court would supersede the industrial agreement which had been in existence since 1937, and that all the employers named in the dispute were parties to the existing industrial agreement. The employers and workers had come to a mutual agreement, and he asked the court to give effect to that agreement. The court, reserved its decision.