" ONE BIG AWARD."

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVII, Issue 17428, 25 March 1920, Page 6

" ONE BIG AWARD."

BUILDING TRADE PROPOSAL. JURISDICTION OF 1 COURT.;; ~ -:' • - ' _ ' QUESTION .OF ;- RELATED TRADES, . ; .: An important and. far-reaching applica- "; lion in : connection with the proposal to secure , "one : big award ""*to cover all , branches"of ta& building was made ■ to Hie Arbitration Court yesterday. Mr. '?.;:■■ •'..-< - presided, A- Conciliation Council : has already with idea of ■„' ,' framing an award, and an;agreement has been reached ;■ on a number, of important v-. v points. The...question before the...Court yes--*.,;.i, 'torday was "not as to the provisions ci t the iJwaro,' .hut as to whether the Court had ffir' ...fjurisdiction i-to * Snake an award ■of the - nature proposed, and as. to whether it "was •£. ' advisable so. -~,-."-^:>; r ■. ':'{ ,, The caiie'was opened by Mr. Ty Blood* . .worth, secretary to • the Amalgamated So- : ; cietv vof Carpenters and- Joiners, who ap■:peared* "on behalf of all the unions concerned.. He said although the application /nad been filed by '"the • carpenters* J:' r \. Union the Rallied unions had joined : with ■;■ '■■■"• '>■ ■ it, andwished'''to^swm^^<moL'jbpmprG3iieti« ":Ci'-f-. ;^&ive ; award. The Warrant for.the applica■■u. - tion was Section 24 of the Industrial Con- ; % ~ ciliaiaen _and^ Arbitration Act, 1908.-': This T ;i . ,aetitmn/bad in mind similar circumstances - ;as Had arisen in. the present and - the ~ applicants .* were , merely asking ? the . '. '".Court exercise- jurisdiction i ;;CSause 4" of the section, and make one 7 . award covering f ,ftli branches of. the trade. J>- v -VSuperseding• Expired Awards. . i :- f- The proposed award was intended pa ; supersede the >following"< nine expired •:'.'* carpenters, Gisborne ■_.£ carpenters* northern:'district ..plumbers,. , J ; plasterers,; : AucHahd electri- ' ' <aanS| .Auckland and Gisborne -'furniture trade*, Auckland monumental masons, .and Auckland builders' masons. It was .'•••'■:.' proposed that the new award should, r - «'in addition to the nine awards named, '~:;.' , ! supersßde ,the• Auckland and: Gisborne '■:■■": V[ painters' "awards, both of which would ex- "; ~pire «n.»Ot4ober 20, 1920,.and the Auck- •': /- v land .bricklayers* award, which would expire on April 7, 1921. ' -'. .-; ; jl'Y'Mr. - Bloodworfir said he had" prepared „/ja.'<chart-' showingthe .provisions of, all the awards which, the proposed one award was "■; /.intended to supersede. This chart showed J that * there ; were no vital variations ■ in any .'one award. ;,. In many instances the provisions were identical,., although • - wording was different. It Was con:sidered ; tiiat, in' .view of the fact that - nine-alßed awards ..had ■ recently expired, the present time x a i particularly apT/roJ ■>. priate.fprthe association to be presented to the Court* Mr. Bloodworth contended -*'■"-'-. v that one ; award. would be more :; satisfac- ~: '■ ! 'H tory ;to employers generally, who would j '~-.* then nave to ■ examinei . one award only, instead;of nine Of- 1 twelve;' -The proposal ; •V. . would also be less expensive.- because in J'r : .. .future, if!,tho Court grantedthe.applicai v. tion, the conciHaiacn • council and ,' fee j . Arbitration Court, would have to consider ,-,•■' -*; one Jute only instead of twelve: ~ ~ Approval by Builders. - ;V. Mr. S. L CSarke said the Auckland Builders' Association and the other build- ;/£» id the Auckland Industrial District, -all ; of whom he -represented, were in ,- ■ favour*©! the proposal to secure-one com- »> prehensiva award. i Ho considered that, g& ; ;ft i on the ground of publio interest, tie r * application should be granted. ;•.:■;,•>/ ';£-*> 'Anticipating -the arguments likely, to " be Kdsed" by some -of fee employers, that ■■■ ■•■: ;,; ■«■.the Act did not provide for. such applica--0_! •;' "tiohs ito be granted,.- Mr. ; Clarke said it -y,-as not strictfy a matter of the- legal interpretation ci the Act, it was a case in --;; which common sense should be an, im- ■.:■ * j'sportant factor. ■'-'.' - •'•: ■ * : ' Hia Honor said there was no doubt the Act-provided far related trades to be included_ in one award. The Court:,had! Tbo extend .the classes, of trade 1 ~beyond.tioj» specifically mentioned ini the ! ~:■■ Act -if ,it were satisfied- that such trades ,-; ' /jrere,related. -V .*< -•»-.."..-.\ -:. : f--\ .--; \;'l,/Mr. Clarke characterised as absurd the I ■'•;' '■'* l statement., .that if one comprehensive Award 38 -' secured it would - give • the - ■ : .,'\ "Builders? Association , too much control V over ,other branches of the building -. trade. .. ../■' x * .--■* m - Other Employers Against Proposal. -. ■!£*■ 8 * ? Wiight, who appeared on behalf of, the master painters, -jphrmbers, -. . monumental masons, electricians, and \ f l .furniture manufaefcurara, opposed the award on the ground that the citation was »;. irregular and invalid, because it did not f : " =$' comply with the requirements of the Act ;''.- in the following particulars — ■j. <l} That itlßd'not comply with the ;; ■• j lnterpretatron of the Act in'regard to the ;* definition of *'** Industrial Disputes,',' in '■■:'' feat Act described that an industrial ■ : -,.; j^diipute;';■ could only • arise between em- •!?• i ;pk>yers and workers, whereas the citation Ij: stated that, a dispute had arisen between '$'/:: ;:an industrial association of workers and ' I ipaons of workers; (2) that it did not ■ : ", oomply. with the definition of " industrial matters." inasmuch that the applicant - '" %iPQfy employers and unions engaged Jrt.v : M industries than its own; (3) that - ; --the« atation did not" disclose that ballots .7. ;of members had been taken• by all the -•'■ /?uhions concerned, ,in compliance with l "Option 107 of the'.' principal Act, 'and ■: section ? 30 of the ,1908 Amendment Act, nor did it disclose the name of the union by which the ballot was taken; (4) that /there-was no 'dispute as between the ». Union and tha employers or tmions-in the* -industries Mr. Wright . represented. " " . 'The objecting employers also contended that recommendation of the council was .invalid, because the requirements of the Act had not been complied with in the following particulars :— ■V Pj .yjbo assessors were not appointed in writing by the commissioner as required by the Act;. (2) the Conciliation Council sat as a' council in a related trades ■■■ dispnte on the ruling of the CDmmissioner, whereas, the trades concerned had not been declared related trades in compliance ■with:section 24 of the principal Act; (3) the Tirades of the objecting employers were not represented on the Conciliation Council. , - ■ Air.. Wright said the Act did not make pro_yision for one, industry to make application for an award to cover another industry. He contended that Mr. Bloodworth had failed to show that a dispute had arisen. There could not be a dispute between one union and another. Attitude of the Court.

"■;' After deliberation, the Court held that it had jurisdiction to make an award. lie Court considered that a valid dispute had been proved. A dispute had been raised by the Carpenters' Union, which had joined other anions, employers' associations, and employers as respondents. Possibly some of the employers -would apply to be struck out, and any such • applications would be -considered in the usual -way. The preliminary question aa to jurisdiction having been settled, the Court would decide m the course of its inquiry as to which employers were engaged in trades and industries related to the building trade. J£?~ Wri^ i ** e a applied to have all s^cT™/ 150 l- DOt em P*°y carpenters struck out as parties to the award He .contended that the carpenters could no? raise a dispute in any trade not their ' iV , Hi Hon ? r ■«£. »?• could not see why the Carpenters' Union could not raise a dispute M to wages and conditionof Thi k J* aTtlsan s in related trades The Act gave the Court authority to decide what were related trades J^U 1 T righfc a of employers to give evidence in support of tis objection that the electrical workers furniture and cabinet makers, painter monumental masons, and plumbers should not be included in the proposed award. - l Th p?urt announced that it would rive its decision on Saturday as to which a™ related trades. The "actual terms 4™ conditions of the award will be considered ■&t a later-- date. %