ARBITRATION COURT

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXX, 23 June 1936, Page 7

ARBITRATION COURT

LONG LIST TO BE DEALT WITH ~ i APPLICATION FOR PREFERENCE J I SAWMILLS FEDERATION AND BOX-MAKERS (United Press Association) j WELLINGTON, 22nd June, j At the sitting of the Arbitration Court to-day, his Honour Mr Justice Page presiding, Mr T. O. Bishop (secretary of the New Zealand Employers’ Federation) said he had been asked on behalf of Mr Seed, who represented the Sawmills Federation and box-makers, to see if his case could be heard on Wednesday afternoon of this week. The reason he was asking for preference was that there was only a fortnigh left in which tenders could be submitted for materials for boxmaking for the fruit and dairy industries. The firms represented by Mr Sped were anxious that their cases should be decided before they had. to put in their tenders. For Wednesday morning he suggested that a group of cases in which citations for new awards were at present in various stages could be taken. He suggested these cases might be considered together. The applications by the employers would be for interim orders to have effect until such time as the awards were made. The principle involved would be exactly the same. An application for an early hearing was made on behalf of the woollen mills industry. Mr Bishop said he had been asked by the Woollen Mill Owners’ Association to apply for a fixture not earlier than next week. Mr W. Tt Young (Wellington Woollen Mills’ and Hosiery Factories’ Employees Union) said that in connection with the application made by MiBishop he proposed raising the question of jurisdiction. The application was filed under section 3, sub-section 1 of the Factories Amendment Act,

1936, and the Court was asked to extend the weekly hours of work from 40 to 44. Under the award of the Court now operating the hours of work would continue until a new award was made or until ist_ September, whichever came first. He. failed to see in the firpt place how the Court could extend 40 hours to 44. Mr Young further submitted that in ac- 1 cordance with sub-section 0 of sec- i tion 3 of the Act it was unlawful io file an, application under section 3 until after 31st August, and, therefore, he contended that the Court, would t have no jurisdiction to entertain the application or any other application pertaining to section 3. In short, his view was that the section did not come into force until Ist September. Replying later to Mr Young, his Honour said there might be quite a lot in what Mr Young said. The Court had not overlooked the fact that the section only came into force on Ist September. But the Court had several hundreds of applications to get through and was dealing with the Factories Act applications in conjunction with the I.C. and A. Act applications and the bulk of them, according to the statute, had to be decided, or should be decided, by September. If the Court waited until September

it would be quite impracticable to got through the work. A.t the meeting tnat-had been held of some representatives of the employers and workers it;was .decided to hear the applications in this way. It might be necessary for the Court to give its formal decision after Ist September, but the procedure decided upon would give the Court some hope of coping with the work. •“My opinion is that the applications to amend awards are not in order,” rejoined Mr Young. . His Honour said that if Mr Young was not prepared to go on until after Ist September the Court would have to adjourn the matter he was interested in.