WORKERS AT AKAPUNI.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18897, 20 December 1924, Page 14

WORKERS AT AKAPUNI.

INDUSTRIAL CONTROL. AGREEMENT OR AWARDS. REFERENCE TO THE COURT. An interesting case was before Mr. Justice Frazer and Messrs. W. Scott and H. Hunter, assessors, in the Arbitration ! Court yesterday, when applications were made by five trade unions to have Sir William Armstrong, Whitworth and Company added as a party to the respective awards. The company has the contract for the Arapuni hydro-electric power works, and had previously entered into an industrial agreement with the New Zealand Workers' Union for all classes of its labourers. Tho Worki rs' Union is not registered under the Arbitration Act. Mr. Bloodworth appeared for the applicant unions and Mr. Hammond for tho company. Mr. Bloodworth submitted that the company's business automatically made it a party to the various awards. Tho company was not competent to enter i.'i'o an agreement with the Workers' Union. It was for tho company to show reason why it should not come under the provisions of tho Arbitration Act. For the company, Mr. Hammond sail that the Court had no jurisdiction in inspect of public contracts, or where a Government isparUnerit was a party. By virtue of the Public Contracts Act, the operations of the Arbitration Act were nullified and the jurisdiction of the Court ousted. The Act also gave employer? and workers liberty of entering into an agreement for working conditions, and it was not competent for the Court to revoko or interfere, with the agreement. Mr. Hammond further submitted that, while the Arbitration. Act was enacted for tho purpose of settling disputes, the applicant unions were seeking to use it for the purpose of creating a dispute. Ho desired to emphasise the fact that the company and tho men were working under a mutual agreement and in absolute harmony. The unions wero actuated by nothing short, of self-interest It could no: be said that they had the interests of tile men at heart, or they would allow them to make their own choice between an agreement amd an award. Tho unions were seeking the benefit of the preference clausr, with a view to better organisation and financing. It could not be shown that the workers would benefit in any way by tho award of the Court; on the contrary, the agreement was more advantageous to them. Tho Court was -cquir«?d to bear in mind that, from the public's point of view, the contract was a publics undertaking for the benefit o' the whole country. As such, it was essential that the work should be cxp°dt tious, in order for it to become productive as soon as possible. The interference of the unions could be destructive to the contentment • at present existing, and he asked the Court to determine the matter in accord with •equity aud good conscience. The parties were satisfied and content with the agreement. Mr. Cooke, secretary of the New Zealand Workers' Union, produced a petition signed by 190 "out of the 280 men em ployed, asking that the Court should not interfere, as they were satisfied to cou tinue under the agreement. He said thai, award conditions were wholly inapplicable to tho contract where co-operative work was a necessity. He was authorised on j the men's behalf to appose the applica . tion. Mr. Williams, secretory of the New Zealand Workers' Union, said the men, wero very much concerned as to what would happen if the Court were to make an award. There world be much dis satisfaction and he ur/£3d that the present state of harmony should be allowed to continue. In reply, Mr. Bloodworth said the applicant unions were entitled to test their rights in the matter of having the company joined to the various awards throughout the district. If the company were in a position to render the Arbitration Act useless by concluding an agreement outside, it would have a far-reaching effect. Tho applicant unions wero entitled to have the company bound to existing awards in keeping with other employers. Decision was reserved.