GROCERS’ AWARD

Greymouth Evening Star, 8 December 1933, Page 5

GROCERS’ AWARD

AGREEMENT OPPOSED.

[PEB PBESS ASSOCIATION.]

CHRISTCHURCH, December 8. An important case concerning the grocery trade was heard in the Supreme Court this morning, when several of the larger firms m Canterbury sought a writ of certiorari, declaring that the industrial agreement said to have been made on May 20, 1933, should be quashed and declared invalid. Mr Justice Ostler heard the proceedings. Plaintiffs alleged that the agreement was an agreement of the assessors and not of the parties to the dispute, that the Council of Conciliation was not validly constituted in accordance with the Act, and that the industrial dispute was not properly constituted. Plaintiffs were Self Help Co-op. Ltd., grocers, Star Stores, Ltd., and New Zealand Farmers’ Co-operative, and others. The defendants were Samuel Ritchie, Conciliation Commissioner, and others, including the Clerk of Awards and the Union Secretary. Mr Stevenson, for the plaintiffs, said the case was one of a series arising from the passing of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act, 1932, which had been interpreted to mean that any agreement was to be an agreement of assessors, and it was considered that an agreement could be made, if all the assessors agreed, although all of the parties might not agree. Such a view on the part of the Conciliation Commissioners had been endorsed by the Arbitration Court, but the Court of Appeal held that the agreement should be agreed to by the parties to the agreement, and’ if there were any disagreement among the parties, there could be no agreement, even though the assessors might be prepared to sign agreements. His Honor declared that the legislation would become a farce if the assessors agreed, and then-" other parties to the award said they would not agree. , Mr Stevenson replied that the legislation was a farce, but added that the difficulty could be got over in other main centres. Similar instances occurred, as after the large employers had started a dispute where no agreement had been reached, certain smaller employers had then created a dispute with the Union. Under the Act, applicant could appoint four assessors. The large employers had then been joined with the union of workers, and had not been allowed to appoint respondent assessors. The larger employers were then brought before the Conciliation Council, upon which they did not have an assessor. Larger employers were not in favour of the agreement, particularly as it related to wages and other conditions.

(Proceeding.)