Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

UNUSUAL PROCEDURE.

COURT WITHOUT JUDGE. EFFORT TO HASTEN BUSINESS. (By Telegraph-—-Pres? Association.) AUCKLAND, Last Night. A sitting of the Arbitration Court of a very unusual character in that there was no presiding judge present was held in Auckland to-day. The special procedure was necessitated through the absence of Mr Justice Page on sick leave and was adopted in an effort to expedite business that has accumulated for the Court. The business before the Court was recommendations made in 22 industrial disputes in which complete agreement had been reached between the parties in Conciliation Council. ! The Court was represented by Messrs A. L. Montcith, assessor for unions, and W. Cecil Prime, employers’ representative. Explaining the position at the outset, Mr Monteith, who presided, said that this sitting had been fixed by Mr Justice Northcroft under Section 78 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1925. The sittings would be adjourned to Christchurch, where any awards -would be made on April 29, when the Court' was properly constituted. In the meantime, so that parties could get their awards and to save undue delay, Mr Prime and he would hear applications. It would then not be necessary for the parties to be in attendance at the adjourned meeting in Christchurch unless they so desired. In several cases in -which there were applications for exemption, Mr Monteith explained that Mr Prime and he could not deal with these, and if an award was to be made in Christchurch, it would be necessary for the parties to consent to the applicants being struck out in the meantime. An application to add them again could be made at the next sittings of the Court in Auckland. The parties agreed to this suggestion in every case. In almost all the disputes the employers were represented by Mr H. J. Bishop, of Wellington, assistant secretary of the New Zealand Employers’ Federation. The unions concerned were represented by about a dozen different secretaries.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HC19370424.2.4

Bibliographic details

Horowhenua Chronicle, 24 April 1937, Page 2

Word Count
324

UNUSUAL PROCEDURE. Horowhenua Chronicle, 24 April 1937, Page 2

UNUSUAL PROCEDURE. Horowhenua Chronicle, 24 April 1937, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert