ARBITRATION

Hokitika Guardian, 7 December 1940, Page 6

ARBITRATION

DAIRY EMPLOYEES’ DISPUTE ENDS

(Per Press Association—Copyright)

WELLINGTON, December 6,

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 until the Court makes an award based on the new claims.

'When the case was called this morning Mr H. J. Bishop, who appeared fox 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, three from each side to redraft the clauses, the intent of which were not In dispute. The claug.es of the proposed award had been drawn up, but only the previous day lie and Mr Ross bad realised they were, 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, [n addition to this point, there whis 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 that be had not prepared a case to he conducted on the basis proposed by Mr Bishop. If the parties could not agree to a basis of hearing, the only thing to do would he to adjourn the case, Mr Justice Tyndall remarked. Mr Ross replied that be understood that a fixture would be unobtainable until February, and then the season would be over. After further discussion by advocates, bis Honour said that the work of the Court was to settle disputes about .what was in dispute. He ndiournefl tlie Court for five minutes. Upon rcsuip•ption. '.Mr Bishop said. ' there ' was actually very little difference between him and Mr Ross. ' ’ 0 ; * The Court is not prepared to-.decide , what the parties. 5 are in'dispute' about,”, said his ’Honour to Mr Ross, after Mr Ross had replied,..‘‘l am not going to Mis|tcn any longer to arguments about what is in dispute. The Court- appreciates; that; you, do not -want to ; wait till a February for a .settlement.” • : Informal discussions and conferences lasted throughout the afternoon, and at 4.30 o’lcock the Court resumed, but Mr Ross announced that an agreement- had not been possible and lie would withdraw the workers’" claims. Both advocates and the Judge expressed regret that the proceedings had come to such ,an end.