DAIRY FACTORY EMPLOYEES

Evening Star, Issue 23753, 7 December 1940, Page 9

DAIRY FACTORY EMPLOYEES

DISPUTE WITHDRAWN FROM COURT A NOVEL DIFFERENCE [Per United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, December 0. The hearing of the New Zealand dairy factory employees’ dispute by the Court of Arbitration to-day concluded with the workers withdrawing their claims from the court. The result is that the proceedings, which were commenced about June, have lapsed,, and the current award will continue in force till the court makes an award based on new claims. When the case was called this morning Mr H. J. Bishop, who appeared for the employers, explained that there was a bona fide difference between him and Mr J. Ross as to what remained for the court to decide. The Conciliation Council had deputed a committee of threo from each side to redraft the clauses, the intent of which was not in dispute. The clauses of the proposed award had been drawn up, but only the previous day he and Mr Ross had realised that they wore not agreed on the position. He believed that all matters in the award affecting drivers remained in dispute, and Mr Ross believed it was only a question of extra payment for drivers on Saturday afternoons and Sundays that remained. In addition to this point there was another smaller one for the court to decide. Mr Bishop suggested that it would be possible for them to proceed with the hearing, but Mr Ross said he had not prepared a case to be conducted on the basis proposed by Mr Bishop. If the parties could not agree to the basis of hearing the only thins! 1 would be to adjourn the case, Mr Justice Tvndall remarked. Mr Ross replied that he understood that a fixture would not be obtainable till February, and then the| season would be over. After further discussion by the advocates His Honour said the work of the court was to settle disputes, but not to settle disputes about what was m dispute, and he adjourned the court for five minutes. Upon resumption, Mr Bishop said that there was actually very little difference between him and Mr Ross. “ The court is not jirepared to decide what the parties are in dispute about,” said His Honour to Mr Ross after Mr Ross had replied. “I am not going to listen any longer to arguments about what is in dispute. The court appreciates that you do not want to wait until February for a settlement. I'rom your approach just now,” be said to Mr Bishop “ I believe that, if the court adjourns to 2.30 the parties will have time to decide on an agreement. Informal discussions and conferences lasted throughout the afternoon, and at 4 30 the court resumed, but Mr Ross announced that an agreement had not been possible, and be would withdraw the workers’ claims. Both the advocates and the judge expressed _ regret that the proceedings had come to such an end.