BUTCHERS' DISPUTE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXX, Issue 21498, 23 May 1933, Page 11

BUTCHERS' DISPUTE

VALIDITY OF SETTLEMENT CONCILIATION PROCEEDINGS EMPLOYERS APPEAL TO COURT A sequel to the recent Auckland retail butchers' dispute was heard in the Supreme Court yesterday before Mr. Justice Smith, when It. and W. Bellab.v, Limited, and others applied for a writ of certiorari to be issued against P. Hally and others to remove into the Supreme Court proceedings heard betore defendants as a conciliation commission. Plaintiffs wore represented by Mr, Towlc. The conciliation commissioner, Mr. Hally, and the employers' assessors on the council were represented by Mr. Johnstone and Mr. Butler, while the workers' assessors were represented by Mr. Tuck. Plaintiffs applied for an ord<?r that the conciliation council proceedings be quashed upon the grounds that defendants had no jurisdiction to execute a settlement, knowing that certain parties to the dispute did not agree to such terms of settlement. Question at Issue

Mr. Towle said the question was whether or not a settlement of a dispute was one made by the parties themselves or by the conciliation council, that was, by the assessors of the parties. A number of employers, employing the minority of workers affected, had applied for a new agreement, opposition io their proposals being taken by the representatives of other firms, who employed the majority of workers, lhe latter employers, who were plaintiffs in the present case, were classed with the employees «it the conciliation piococuings as respondents. The respondent employers claimed they were entitled to have some part in the appointment of assessors, but the Arbitration Court ruled that the assessors appointed by the applicant employers must stand. At a meeting of the conciliation council on May the respondent employers applied to be struck out of the proceedings as respondents, but the conciliation commissioner declined. They then asked for an adjournment and this also was declined. Plaintiffs then lodged with the conciliation commissioner notice that they refused to bo represented. Notwithstanding that notice, the conciliation council went ahead and terminated the dispute, or so it claimed. Counsel contended clear intimation bad been given that no settlement could be reached unless plaintiffs agreed, so that obviously there cwuld not have been a settlement. Contentions of Plaintiffs

Counsel submitted that a settlement as contemplated by the Act was a settlement by the parties themselves and not by the assessors; that, in face of the clear intimation from the plaintiffs, there could have been no such settlement; that without the agreement of all parties no settlement could be made and therefore an essential element of jurisdiction was absent; that on receipt of' the plaintiffs' notice the duty of the conciliation council was clear, that is, it should have acted according to the Act and either referred the matter to the Court or taken a vote to refer the matter for further consideration. Counsel suggested the Court might see fit to refer the present action further. His Honor: Well, I will settle that matter now if you wish. Mr. Johnstone said they were essentially proceedings which should go to the Arbitration Court. The matter could be very simply tested by having it referred to the Arbitration Court, which might state a case for the Court of Appeal. Mr. Tuck said he thought the matter was of such importance that ultimately it must be determined by the Court of Appeal. They would be prepared to request the Judge of the Arbitration Court to refer it to the Court of Appea I. Mr. Towle said the matter was one of urgency and provided it could be dealt with at the June sitting of the Appeal Court he would agree. His Honor accordingly adjourned the hearing sine die to enable action to be taken on the lines of counsels' suggestion.