TIMBER WORKERS

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVIII, Issue 8, 7 December 1937, Page 14

TIMBER WORKERS

ALLEGED BREACH OF AWARD. ACTION IN NELSON. Per Press Association. NELSON, Dec. 6. Cases described as of national importance were before the Magistrate’s Court to-day. Two actions were brought by the inspector of-awards, Mf D. Rollo, against timber millers, the Magistrate, -Mr T. E. Maunsell, holding he had no jurisdiction to deal with them. L. and J. Baigent were charged with committing a breach of the Nelson Timberyards Sawmills, and Box Factory Employees’ Award by employing Walter John Quinney as leading breaker down and failing to pay him the rate of wages prescribed in the award. A charge against H. Baigent and Sons was of employing H. Gardiner as head busliman, paying him 18s 6d a day instead of 19s as provided in the award. Mr W. V. Rout, counsel for defendants, said he wanted to submit a preliminary point, asking that the proceedings be either struck out or stayed. The Labour Department had arranged for .the disputes committee to deal with the matter, but the secretary of the union wrote saying it was provided for in the award and it was not necessary to refer it to the disputes committee. The case was of considerable importance, not only locally, but also throughout New Zealand. If, at the behest of the'secretary of a union, the terms of an award could be set aside, it was obviously going to nullify this important provision in every award in New Zealand which provided that all these questions should be referred to a disputes committee, and that the powers of the court should not be invoked until a committee had considered _ it. _ Counsel submitted that the jurisdiction of the court was taken away until the matter had been referred to thp disputes committee. . , . The Magistrate: If it is referred to the disputes committee, what then? Mr Rout: “If-the employer does not abide by the decision, then action can be taken.” If the committee did not agree, the case went to the Arbitration Court. A written application had been made in terms of the award lor tlie matter to go before the committee. The inspector said that Mr Baigent and Mr Turley, secretary of the union, were both members of the disputes committee. Mr Turley said it was useless going to the committee, because no agreement could be reached. The award definitely laid down rates of pay for those workers, and the department had to bring the case befoie the court for decision. He admitted there was a dispute, the contention being that rates of pay were - specically dealt with and could not be departed from. The dispute was that in the case of one worker lie was substantially employed on a breaking down saw, except that another worker sharpened the saw for him. Being the only worker he was entitled to be classed as the leading breaker down. The Magistrate asked whether that was not a question of fact to be decided by the disputes committeee The inspector referred to another case where the decision of the court was that if there was only one worker he must be classed as first or leading man, , ' ... Mr Rout said the award provided for rates of wages, but there was no way other than custom of deciding which man came into which category. That was precisely the question applicable to Quinney. He was the only man on this bench. He did not sharpen liis saw, and there was overwhelming' evidence that a leading breaker down, did and must shcU’pen Ins saw to come into that qualification. The decision quoted did not bear on this case. The question was, did lie come under one or other of these descriptions? Mr Turley’s statement that there was no chance of the disputes committee coming to an agreement did not come into it. It must go to the committee, even if it was a farce. The inspector said that a clause provided for a saw doctor. Where a saw doctor was employed lie would sharpen / The Magistrate queried whether that Avas not a matter of fact which it was for the committee to go into. If what Mr Turley said was true, it seemed a pity that the question had been raised, but he was bound to take it into consideration. . In answer to tlie Magistrate, Mi Rout said the dispute was whether a man carrying out Quinney’s duties was covered by the description of leading breaker down. . . The Magistrate said it seemed clear he had no juridiction. It was a matter of fact for the committee to decide. Mr Rout pointed out that it affected all mills throughout New Zealand. The Magistrate advised the parties to go formally to the disputes committee and then if they did not agree to go to the Arbitration Court for a decision. He adjourned the cases sin© Jie. H© was not accepting jmidiction, but if tlie inspector had something to bring before him, then he would review it. If it was a matter of national importance he agreed that it should go before the Arbitration Court.