WATERSIDERS’ AWARD

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 11386, 6 December 1922, Page 5

WATERSIDERS’ AWARD

MR ROBERTS AS CRITIC EMPLOYERS’ REPRESENTATIVE OBJECTS TO REMARKS. ALLEGED DISRESPECT SHOWN. Per Press Association. CHRISTCHURCH, December 5. In Wellington, about ten days ago, Mr J. Roberts, secretary of the Waterside Workers’ Federation, made some references to the recent award of the Arbitration. Court with regard to the watersiders’ award, to which exception was taken by Mr Hammond, advocate for the emoloyers, in the Arbitration Court here this afternoon. Mr Roberts made application under section 92 of the Industrial Concaliation and Arbitration Act. 3908, for the preference clause of the award, recently made in Wellington, to be ,6o amended as to permit of the payment of an annual levy by a watersider to his union of £2 instead of £l, as at present. In doing so Mr Roberts said that unless 'such alteration was made it would be impossible for many of the unions in the Dominion to exist. Many of the larger unions would probably not need to make such a large levy, hut some of the smaller bodies would, he thought. The present award, with reference to the amount of levy YifjtA to unions, was due to a misunderstanding. ALLEGED ABUSE OF COURT. Mr Hammond said that before the court dealt with the application he wanted to draw its attention to the criticism made of the recent award by Mr Roberts. In an interview in Wellington. Mr Hammond said the Federation, through Mir Roberts, had abused the Court in the grossest manner possible and represented the award as a travesty of justice. Mr Roberts had represented that the Court was a court of injustice rather than of justice, and had gone so far as to say the watersiders would nlease themselves whether they would observe the award or not. He had even disparaged the personnel of the Court. Those remarks, said Mr Hammond, showed the respect the Federation had, at thattime, for the Court, and also indicated the respect it would show to any award of the Court. Unless Mr Roberts was prepared to give an assuranoe that awards would be respected he submitted the employers were entitled to know what views the Federation held towards the Court. At the present time did Mr Roberts’s appearanoe in the Court indicate that he had recognised the error of his ways, that he should return to seek favours of the court —the same court that ‘ he _ had asked the public to. believe was 1 the vile institution he alleged ? If Mr Roberts had returned to the court a chastened man it was to be assumed the sentence, to use Mr Roberts’s own words, had been one of reformative treatment and had already shown a beneficial result in a very short space of time. The he said, were in the position of being able to raise an objection to the present application on the jurisdiction, but would .not do so, in the hope that the application was an indication that the award would be respected by the Federation. The employers were content to leave che matter entirely in the court’s hands, but would suggest that the court ascertain Mr Roberts’s present frame of mind. His Honour said that to adopt Mr Hammond’s suggestion would be to ask Mr Robert® to say something which would probably cause him to be charged with contempt of court, if said there, but would not 'be if he said it through, the newspapers. MUST SUBMIT TO THE LAW. Mr Roberts said Mr Hammond was introducing a matter that was not before the Qourt. There was a law dealing with disputes, and watersiders, like all other people, must euhmit to the law pf the country. He suggested Mr Hammond was introducing the matter at a convenient period,' when the elections were close at hand. He was of opinion the award had been made in error, and if an amendment was not made he could assure the Court there would he no unions left to carry on at all in some parts of the Dominion. Reverting to Mr Hammond’s suggestion, he would like to eay that he looked on it as foreign matter, and consequently would not reply to it. He considered Mr Hammond’s statement quite uncalled for-/ EXPLANATION ASKED FOR. Mr Hammond said he did not question Mir Roberts’s right to make the present application, but in view of his intimation that the watersiders had finished with the Court it might be helpful to the employers, and, the Court, if Mr Roberts were to ejsplain his inconsistency in making his present application. MATTER WOULD BE PUT RIGHT. His Honour said the Court bad power, under the Act. to make the amendment asked for in the event of an error having been made When it amended the draft award. It did so because it thought the Federation wanted such an amendment. This was due evidently to a misunderstanding (as the court was quite clear as to what had taken place), or Mr Roberts not having made himself dear, and the matter would be put right. “As regards Mr Roberts’s remarks concern ing the award,’’ said His Honour, “I suppose awards of the Court cannot please everybody. It does seem rather unfortunate that the Court should bo made a chopping block at a time of political excitement. I suppose it is too much to expect that the Court can be kept out of it. We can only set a good example by keeping out of it ourselves, as far as possible. We do not want to make any further reference to what has appeared in tho public Press.”