CONCILIATION COUNCIL

Greymouth Evening Star, 3 July 1933, Page 5

CONCILIATION COUNCIL

PROBLEM FOR APPEAL COURT. [PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON, July 3. t The Court of Appeal is hearing argument on the case stated for opinion by the Judge of the Arbitration Court, pursuant to section 105 Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1925. The facts are that plaintiff, an inspector of awards, instituted proceedings in the Court of Arbitration at Auckland, for the recovery of a penalty for alleged breach by R. and W. Hellaby, Ltd., of Auckland, of the Butchers’ Industrial Agreement made by the Conciliation Council on May 3 of this year. The breach alleged was that defendant employed a roundsman, and failed to pay him not less than the' minimum rate of wages fixed by the agreement. Defendant admitted the act complained of, but contended <hat no offence had been committed, on the ground that the said, agreement was not valid, and that no settlement, of an industrial dispute which gave rise to the agreement had in fact been made; that moreover the agreement was void in that it contained terms which were ultra vires, being in excess of the jurisdiction of the Conciliation Council. They relied on the fact that before the agreement was made, a dispute had arisen in the Conciliation Court as to the appointment of the assessors, and the defendant company, along with certain other master butchers cited as parties, withdrew, upon giving notice. The questions for consideration of the Court turn on whether the Conciliation Council had the right to hear the original dispute, and make the settlement binding on the parties who would not agree thereto.

Mr Stevenson, for the defendants, said the main question was whether an industrial agreement .purporting to settle a dispute'must be agreed to by all parties, or whether the Council of Conciliation could make an agreement binding on the dissenting parties. His client had not been a party to the agreement and had not consented to its being made. (Proceeding).