ARBITRATION COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13234, 20 July 1906, Page 6

ARBITRATION COURT.

EXTENT OF. JURISDICTION,

QUESTIONS FOR THE SUPREME

COURT.

[BY TELEGRAPH. —lUKSS ASSOCIATION.]

Wixi.ixoton, Thursday, Tire Supreme Court, sat this afternoon to hear argument In the special ease* stated, for the opinion of the Supreme Court by Mr. Justice Chapman, president of the Court of Arbitration. The question for the determination of the Court ..was as to the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court to make an award affecting employers beyond the territorial limits of New Zealand. The Wellington Cooks and Stewards' Union obtained an award on April 27, 1904, and the Wellington Seamen's Union obtained an award on March 19, 1906, to which the Union Steam Ship Company were parties, prescribing a minimum rate of wages to members of the union while working on the company's boats. The company's steamers trade to Australia, Fiji, and other places beyond the jurisdiction of New Zealand, and it is alleged that breaches of the award have taken place while in Australian ports, the men being forced to keep port watches without being paid overtime. The award in question was only an award for Che Wellington industrial district, there being no power to make a colonial award. The questions for the consideration of the Supreme Court are — 1. Could the award be enforced in Australian ports? 2. Was a breach committed when the watch was ordered to be kept, or when men were paid, without overtime payments being made? ; ■ 3. To what extent did an award become, the law of the ship? The Huddart-Parker Company was also a party to the award, but its ships are registered in Melbourne. The Court is also asked to define the legal position in this case.. ..

Dr. Findlay appeared for the New Zealand branch of the Australian Federated Seamen's Union, Mr. Hindmarsh for the Wellington Cooks and Stewards' Union, Mir. Levi for the Union Steam Ship Company, and Mr. Martin Chapman lor the ddart-Parker Company. Dr. Findlay opened the argument with a statement of the facts as given above. Pie then.contended that the Legislature of New Zealand had power to pass an Act giving the Courts jurisdiction over offences committed in other countries, and, if that was so, the Court had power to enforce the award.

The case is proceeding.