ALTERATION OF AWARD.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20303, 10 July 1929, Page 14

ALTERATION OF AWARD.

OBJECTION BY EMPLOYERS.

COURT'S POWER QUESTIONED

UNION MEMBERSHIP ORDER

[BY '1 EI.EGRAPH.—PRESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON. Tuesday.

The Full Court has reserved decision hi tho case ol Arthur Edwin Butt, of Invercargill, tobacconist; Vivian Simeon Jacob, of Dunedin. tobacconist, and the Dunedin Tobacconists' Industrial Union of Krnployers, plaintiffs, against Mr. Justice Frazer, Mr. George Thomas. Booth and Mr. Alexander Larnont Monteilh, ineinbers of the Arbitration Court.

Plaintiffs mover) to have (he Dunedin, Oaniaru, (lore and Invercargill Tobacconists' Assistants' Award moved into tho Supreme Court and certain parts thereof examined and quashed by the Court. The award was made on March 4, 1927, and by a subsequent order made on March 12, 1929, the Arbitration Court altered the terms of the award to tho effect th;it all persons employed as assistants in hairdressers' and tobacconists' shops within tho area affected by the award must becomo members of the Otago Hairdressers' and Tobacconists' Assistants' Industrial Union of Workers; that all such assistants not, becoming members of tho union should bo dismissed from employment and only members of tho union bo employed by such tobacconists and hairdressers.

Contentions by Employees. The employers attacked alt#rations of (lie award 011 the grounds (1) that they did not consent to the order varying the award and such consent is necessary by law; (2) that the alterations are beyond the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court (inter alia) because the provisions amount to the creation of compulsory unionism; (3) that the order places an unwarranted restriction, on, employers in the choico of employees. Mr. J. F. 15. Stevenson, for tlto' plaintiffs, submitted that the Arbitration Court had gone beyond ils jurisdiction in making (ho order complained of. The Court might give preference to unionists, but it could not prevent non-unionists from working. The Court had no power to force any person to join a union against his will. It had no statutory authority to deal with the relations of employers as between themselves, nor with the relations of workers as between themselves, nor with (he relations between workers and a workers' union. It could deal with tho relations between employers and workers only. Arbitration Court's Powers.

The relations affected by tho order objected to were not relations between employers and workers, contended counsel. The history of tho Arbitration Acts showed that Parliament never intended to confer on the Court power to establish compulsory unionism.

Mr. F. W. Ongley, for tho defendants, contended that K .tno only function of the Supreme Court with regard to tho Arbitration Court was to seo that the latter kept within ils jurisdiction. In this case, he submitted, the Court had kept within its jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court could not interfere. Tho matter being an industrial dispute within tho meaning of tho Arbitration Act, tho Arbitration Court could deal with it in any manner it thought fit, immune from interference by any other Court.