FREEZING DISPUTE

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVIII, Issue 11046, 1 November 1921, Page 7

FREEZING DISPUTE

AND ARBITRATIRN GOURT OMISSION TO CITE WORKERS* ASSOCIATION. A LENGTHY ARGUMENT. Arbitration, sittings in connection -with the freezing workers* dispute were opened at the Magistrate’s Court buildings yesterday. The court consisted of His Honour Mr Justice Frazer (president), and Messrs W. Scott and M. J. Reardon (representatives respectively for the employers and employees). Mr A. S. Cookson and Mr W. A. Grenfell appeared for the employers and Messrs F. 'J. Niall and W. B. Sill for the employees. There mas a large attendance. THE BACON CURING INDUSTRY. Mr Grenfell askod leave to mention the position with the bacon companies. The demands included clauses relating to baoon companies, and he asked for the court to make an exemption as far as they were concerned. He stressed the unfairness of one company being bound by award conditions while others remained free. Mr Sill objected that there could not reasonably be any differentiation. Mr Grenfell urged that so far as the balling of pigs was concerned the award should apply, but not when it was in connection with the baoon-curing industry. His Honour said the point would be considered. *. MR REARDON’S POSITION. Mr Cookson said that an impression existed that the freezing companies objected to the position of Mr Reardon on the court. He wished to state that the companies had no obj ection, but rather welcomed him for the reason that he was conversant with conditions in the trade. He would be able to materially assist the oourt in arriving at a satisfactory settlement. His Honour said ho was sure Mr Reardon’s technical knowledge would be Of great use to the court. A CITATION MATTER. Mr Niall said he understood the New Zealand Freezing Works and Related Trades Association of Workers had been cited as parties to the dispute, lie wished "to apply to have it struck out. His Honour: What is . the ob j ectl? Mr Niall said that the federation bad no knowledge of the dispute. His Honour : What does the association really comprise? Is it a federation of all the unions, covering the whole Dominion P—Yes. These aire all purely local disputes, axe they not?—Yes. Mr Cookson said he could not understand Mr Niall’s objection. The counter proposals were headed "New Zealand Freezing Works and Related Trades Association counter proposals.’’ His Honour: These counter* proposals seem to have been drawn up by the association. Mr Niall said that be had drawn them up, but he oould not get the backing of the federation, educe he was unable to secure a meeting of the executive! If the oourt did not have the counfer pro-, posals that was proof that' they had not Deem, filed. His Honour: They were for a purely local dispute ?—Yes. Mr Cookson contended that the federation had been cited legally. The whole of the correspondence that had passed had been between the federation and the association, which represented all the freezing companies in the Dominion. He submitted a sheaf of the letters that had pawed between, the parties. It all. went to prove bi» contention, be said, that the dispute was between the federation and the association, and. that the citation had been properly carried' out. His Honour remarked that apparently the association had had some say in the negotiations, but the court did not feel disposed to deride the point immediately, since it had no material’ effect at present. HETEE3GT OF DELAY. Mx Cookson said it was of great importance to the companies that the point should bo decided. If the dispute was considered by the court as a local matter it would delay the decisions in the other districts in the North Island, which would have & serious effect on the industry. If the freezing works were not opened shortly the country would be involved in a loss ' of thousands of pounds, because the stock, remaining unfrozen would represent am’absolute lose to th« firms. He urged' the opurt, therefore. to deal with the dispute so far as the North Island was concerned, and make an award as soon as possible. . Mr Niall still maintained that the federation had not' been cited. He denied having received a certain letter referred to by Mr Cookson from Mr Millie, manager of the Wellington Meat Expert Company. Mr Cookson said that the letter was actually signed on behalf of Mr Milne. Mr Niall said that that letter wap fpom the North and South Island Freezing Companies’ Association, who were not parties to the dispute. If the federation was to be made a party it should be cited in the manner. laid down by the Act. It had not been cited, and should therefore be struok out. All the letters Mr Cookson bad quoted wot© dated up to September Ist, up to which- date he (Mr Niall) bad authority from the association to deal with the companies. He had no authority after that date. Mr Cookson said that the application made was perfectly in accord with the Act. He oould produoe evidence to show that in a letter dated September Ist Mr Niall had referred to the negotiations as still proceeding) Therefore the dispute bad boon in existence on September Ist. Mr Reardon said that the point the ■ federation was making was that it had : not actually received citation papers. Mr Cookson said that the olerk of awards could dear up that point. A CLERICAL OMISSION. His Honour, after referring to the papers, said that appeped from the ' list of parties that the association had been omitted. It was a mistake on the part of the dark of awards. Mr Niall, in reply to a question, repeated hie statement that the federation dropped out of the dispute on September Ist. Mr Odokson: Is there any note of the filing of the counter-proposals with the olerk of awards? His Honour: No. Mr Cookson: Then Mr Niall is deliberately misleading usMr Niall: I understood they were filed by Mr Reardon. Mr Reardon replied that he had filed counter-proposals for the Wellington union. BLOCKING THE PROCEEDINGS. Mr Cookson said he was sure the court wonld not allow the case to be held up by the quibble that had been raised. Bight throughout the proceedings Mr Niall was endeavouring to prolong the cms. Why should Mr Sill, the president of the federation, be appearing in the court if the dispute was not a federation one? The workers’ representatives were trying to block the proceedings. Mr Niall: Dis is my first appearance before the court. As to his misleading tbs court it would be quite impossible for him to do eo. „ Mr Cookson: Should the mdustay be penalised on account of a clerical omission qn ‘the part of the clerk of the court? His Honour: We had better retire and discuss the matter. CITED BUT NOT SERVED. The point that had. been raised, said Tpa Honour, on the return of the members of the court, was almost entirely legal. Section 82 - of the Act said that there was a distinction between a eitattoaund thq service of a citation. It was

quite dear the association had been cited, but that it had not been served. They could see no grounds for ordering the association to be struck out of the party. He did not blame the clerk of awards for the mistake that had been made; anyone might have made the same error. The name of the association had been printed at the top of the citation paper, and the: names of the other unions had been typed m below. It was quite natural that the printed portion should have -been overlooked. Mr Sill then raised the question as to whether the court had any jurisdiction to make an award in the Auckland’ district. He submitted that the dispute in that district was not, within the meaning of the Act, properly before the court. The applicants were the Auckland Farmers’ Freezing Company, and the respondents were the Auckland Abattoir Assistants’ and the Poverty 11 ay Freezing Workers’ Related Trades Union. He contended that no dispute had been, created so far as they were concerned. A letter, purporting to create a dispute, had been sent, under the heading' “North and South Island Freezing Companies Association,’’ to the general secretary ox the federation. Even if a dispute had been created the North and South Island Association was an unregistered 'body. Hfe submitted, fur th>.' r , that the New Zealand Freezing Workers Related Trades Association had no power to create a dispute on behalf of . the Auckland or Poverty Bay organisations. The fact that there was a dispute between the North and South Island' Association and the Freezing Workers Federation would not create a dispute between the Auckland Farmers’ FreezingCompany and the respondents cited. Even if both were registered bodies th 6 Siwers of the Freezing Workers’ Federaon did not entitle them to create a dispute on behalf of the respondent union. He relied substantially on a judgment delivered by Mr Justice Sim in the dispute between the Canterbury shearers and sheepowners. That case appeared to be on all fours with the present one. He referred the court also to the Otago shearers and the Otago and Southland sheepowners. He further raised the point that the citation papers were dated August 81st, and the letter purporting to create a. dispute was dated September Ist. A dispute could not be oreated till September Ist, because the Poverty Bay agreement was in existence, and did not expire till August 31st. The association, he contended, was practically a consultative body. DELAYING THE PROCEEDINGS. Mr Oookson: The point seems quite a fair one, if the union wishes to delay the proceedings, as it apparently does. Mr Sill must admit the negotiations which took place between June and towtarde the end of August, and that about the third or fourth of September they ceased. The statement that there had been no negotiations after September Ist was not correct, because the 'proceedings in conference continued for several days afterwards, "and then ended abruptly, the ease to go to the Conciliation Council. The negotiations oontinned for several days after September Ist, so it could not be said the dispute did not exist. Mr Cookson said, .. that although the North and South Island Freezing Companies’ Association was not registered, it was acting as the representative of the whole of the companies. The whole of the correspondence showed that that was the cgse. The matter of dealing with the dispute immediately was of such importance that the oourt, seeing that the federation had been represented in the private and conciliation negotiations, should exercise its power to voice the irregularity and Compel the Auckland union to proceed with the hearing of the dispute iu Wellington. Nothing further could be brought before the court if the case was heard in Auckland, add the interests of . the union would not be prejudiced in Wellington. In the course of the hearing evidence wpuld be brought' forward to show the loesea sustained by the companies through the delay in the opening of the freezing season last year. They were very serious, and similar losses would be incurred this year if the works were not opened shortly. CASE BEING RUSHED THROUGH. Mr Bill submitted there was no dispute on August 31st. If there was, it was not between the parties mentioned in. the citation. The whole ” thing was being rushed through by the companies in order to obtain an award. Mr Cookson: It is just quibbling to say that there was no dispute. On what. oould the parties 'be negotiating if it was not a dispute? He hoped the court would regard the hearing from the point of view of the interests of the industry, and particularly the community, wjiich would suffer severely if the proceedings were held up. His Honour said that the points raised were very important, and the members of the oourt would retire to consider them. "NO JURISDICTION." When the court resumed after lunch His Honour said that it'had been laid down ibgr Mr Justice Sim that the court had no jurisdiction to hear an application for an gward unless, at the time the application was made, a dispute was in existence .within the meaning of the Act. -The court had perused the correspondence handed in, and. it was quite clear- that the freezing companies themselves, as individuals, had not taken part in -the negotiations. The North arid South Island Freezing Companies* Association, being unregistered, was incapable of creating or being a party to a dispute. Theretore, on September Ist a dispute was created between an unregistered and a registered body. The court could not recognise such, a dispute. But the subsidiary question still remained as to whether the association was acting as agent for the various freezing companies on authority. Mr Justice Sim’s decision did not deal with that point. There were indications that the labour committee at one stage purported to be acting as agent to the association: yet the letter of September Ist hardly bore that construction. In the opinion of the court there .was no jurisdiction to deal with the cose because a dispute had not been shown to exist between the companies and the unions. The court desired to exprest its regret that the proceedings should be h-elld up on account of a technicality. It woe a matter for regret that the time for commencing the sea Bout’s operations was very nearly dug, and they trusted the difficulties would be overcome. As all the parties were present or represented by agents the oourt suggested that a conference might -be held with the object of endeavouring to arrive at a settlement. Mr Scott and Mr Reardon were willing to give any assistance in their power to that end. Mr Oookson explained that the labour committee had b jen authorised to deal with the dispute and carry it to a con. elusion. His Honour said that it appeared l front the correspondence that the committee conducted the proceedings up to a certain stage and then dropped out, the North and South Wand Association carrying on. A lengthy argument upon, other mattens " raised took place, including, the point as to when the dispute actually came into existence. I The members of the court, after a retirement, held that the dispute was in existence on September Ist: The president stated that they- were quite agreed the association must be treated as outside the jurisdiction of the court, hut in view of the fact that there was evidence of a dispute between the parties there was jurisdiction; and the heaping of the application could he proceeded with. The case will be resumed at 10 a.m. to-day.