FREEZING DISPUTE

Feilding Star, Volume 5, Issue 1032, 17 February 1927, Page 7

FREEZING DISPUTE

WAS H A STRIKE? ARGUMENT JN ARBITRATION > COURT (Per Press Association) Wellington, Feb.. lb. In the freezing workers’ dispute which. was continued before tbe Arbitration Court" to-day, tbe employers combated tbe. workers claim that ’l2s should bo substituted for 8s in the minimum, wage clause. ; Ale Sanderspn lor the employers, asked that the Court, restore the 1921 rates ami asked' the Court whether it wished/to bear evidence regarding the refusal of the men to engage i-H work., or in regard to strikes. A

, Mr Sill, the workers’ representative ashed whether Mr Saiude'rsoii were.not indicating the union in the eyes of the Court in a' matter in hvliieh it had no jurisdiction.

Mr Justice Frazer: “We can only, deal with the preference clause. Officially, as a Court, we do not know, anything of the circumstances of the occurrences, of last year, except uhat 'we read in the iieswpapei-s, or whether that can he taken as correct. There is something from each side and! the statements dp not tally.. A\e as a Court, cannot assume any judicial knowledge of that- The definition of ‘strike’ implies a cessation, of work. Mere combination is not strike.” Mr Sanderson: “1 am not particularly stressing that if was. a strike His Honour: .No doubt, buts “Strike” is a defined term and the Court cannot sav that any union has been guilty of a strike unless the facts brought" Ihe occurrences within th 6 definition of a strike. . Air Sanderson: 1 submit that the Court cannot ignore the . inferences that these men refused engagemenut. His Honour: The Court can draw an inference that there was war from newspapers, but- 1 dp not think the Court- can take judical knowledge of what is an industrial offence without confirmation, ,'.The offence must be proved. As ordinary members of the community wo lc-n.ow that there were disturbances .in - November last, but I do not know that we can assume from that knowledge that the union has committed an offence. There is 'a difference between a number, of men taking the wrong course / and thd union taking that' course. Non ask us to assume that some breach of award took place last November, without any evidence at all. Air Sanderson: I wish! chiefly to Tpoint out the advisability of deleting the preference clause—if ,<not the. whole of it. at least those portions affecting the 'freezing and learners?. ' His. Honour: .You have a right ii the union has assisted in a strike or encouraged a strike or done anything in the way of. concerted actyon to defeat the terms of it he award, to claim deletion of the preference clause. Air Sanderson sajd he would call wliat evidenco be had, and evidence was called by him to prove that tallies had been restricted by the- workers so that while fast men could- finish their tallies at 4..113 p.m., the slow men: could finish the .same tally at o- pun.