CONCILIATION COUNCIL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 14000, 4 March 1909, Page 6

CONCILIATION COUNCIL.

A LIVELY SITTING.

ATTACK ON THE i COMMISSIONER.

UNION REFUSES TO BRING EVIDENCE.

There was a short, but sharp sitting of a Conciliation Council at the Supreme Court Buildings yesterday, and an attack on Mr T Halle Giles, the Commissioner, was made by Mr. T. Long, the secretary of the union concerned in the matter before the Court. The case was a dispute filed by the Auckland Hotels and Restaurant Industrial Union of Workers, and. was the first to come before Mr. T. Harle Giles, the Conciliation Commissioner for Auckland district, Ho was accompanied on the Bench by Messrs. F. Prior and F. Whitehead as assessors for the employers, and by Messrs. H. Radford and G. Phillips, as assessors for the employees. , Mr. Long, secretary, appeared for the union, and Mr. C. G. Knox for a number of the employers cited. It was evident that considerable interest had been aroused and that some "developments'* were expected, as there was a large attendance. Several prominent members of the social party were among those present. The Commissioner called on the parties to proceed. Mr. Long said that in opening the case he wished to say at the outset that the union did not intend to offer any evidence for two reasons. The first was that his union had decided "That in its opinion the Conciliation Commissioner for the district was not a fit and proper person to be appointed to such a responsible position. It was hardly necessary to enlarge upon this, for the matter had been dealt with by all the Auckland unions. The second reason was that having met the f employers on four ' occasions, the union felt that" no good could come from presenting a case before the Council. Therefore, as far as: the union was concerned, it was not prepared to offer any case. :. '■- ■■-''■'_. ■- -

Mr. Knox said it was hardly necessary for him to make many remarks. The employers, at all events, did not concur with what had been said by the other side. There was a certain course laid out for procedure in connection with such a dispute, and the employers preferred that the case should go through in the ordinary course. At present he was not quite prepared to go on, because some of his witnesses were not available, and he asked for a three weeks' adjournment. .Mr. Long said he certainly objected 10 an adjournment. The union had neither time nor money for an adjournment. The matter should be settled there and then, and referred to the Arbitration Court. :,','lf there's an. adjournment," Mr. Long went on to say, "I won't appear, and you can go on with the ca6e if you like. I call upon you (the Commissioner), if you have the welfare of the workers and the masses of the industrial section at heart, to ; resign your ; position. There.'s likely, to be: an industrial upheaval in Auckland ■ very soon at present rates, and this position is accentuating the difficulty. - ■ . ' _ ~ The Commissioner: ; I have no intention of', resigning . my ■ position, Mr. Long. With, reference to the adjournment, section 42 of : the ; Act provides that not earlier than one month nor later than two months after the date fixed for the hearing of the dispute, the Council . shall, unless a settlement has been sooner ! arrived :'at,-'^deliver to the clerk of awards a notification that no settlement has been arrived at. Consequently it* is impossible to send this case, before the Court before a 'month. Personally,* I have no power to : adjourn or otheryise; I,; only have a casting vote." </ ; The; question was then ■ put to the - assessors. ~; The employers' representatives agreed /to; the ; adjournment, but - the union's representatives ■ refused. -'■ The Commissioner . said he would give his casting vote in faVour of the adjournment, on the ground that"in" the interval the union might consider, its position, i and enter an amicable agreement. ; Mr. Long said that the union had met the 1 employers four times, and could not arrive at a settlement, and there was not the; slightest /possibility of a settlement through the • Council. He added: '"I think I am capable of seeing what the reason for the adjournment is, and if that is J: so, :the . responsibility /will;; rest .upon the shoulders of i; those who have been j party jto \ it. I ' can see the point. I am , not) Hoping to say what it is, but it is a j deliberate attempt to defeat the ends of he" union, and I resent it, very strongly. ,; The Commissioner: Mr. , Long, I must, ask you to show respect to the Court. - The Council, then considered objections to citation, ; and ; allowed * that of - John Court and : Sons, • that firm now • having no refreshment rooms in connection with its business. '•;.. " .

-■' Mr. Wright, pastry cook, Karangahap* Road, asked Mr. Long what constituted a! restaurant.

: Mr. Long: That can • ,be best defined by t yourself. : : If you - haven't the ability tj definite: it you should get a solicitor. You keep tea-rooms. : Sir. Wright said he did not keep tearoom? in 'the ordinary ; sense of the word, A few cups of; tea were served in the course of the day by shop assistants. "' The Commissioner said he would not be disposed to strike out i anyone from the citation list on those grounds. , Some more evidence would be required. - A Mrs. Barker objected to citation in respect to JJevonport Ferry Booms, and showed that she was not the proprietress. Her objection was therefore allowed. Captain Toomer (Salvation Army) asked if the adjournment applied Ito the • case against the boardinghouse-keepers called for next Monday. V The " ' '

_-, _ : Oh, no. That comes on on Monday. This sitting is adjourned till March 24. ■