WATERSIDE WORKERS’ AWARD.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18730, 7 December 1922, Page 10

WATERSIDE WORKERS’ AWARD.

DISCUSSION IN THE ARBITRATION COURT. MR ROBERTS’S CRITICISM. (Pee United Phess Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, December 6. In Wellington about 10 days ago, Mr Roberts, secretary of the New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Federation, made some references to the recent award of the Arbitration Court with regard to the waterside workers’ award, to which exception was taken by Mr Hammond, advocate for the employers. In the Arbitration Court here yesterday afternoon, Mr Roberts made an application under section 92 of "the Industrial Conciliation Arbitration Act, 1908,” for the preference clause of the award recently made in

Wellington to be so amended as to permit of the payment of an annual levy by a waterside worker to his union of £2 instead of £l, as at present. In doing eo Mr Roberts said that unless such an 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, but some of the smaller bodies would. 1 He thought the present award, with reference to the amount of the levy to be paid to unions, was due to a misunderstanding. 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 Mr 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 pone so far as to say the waterside workers would please themselves as to whether they would observe the award or not. Ho had even disparaged the personnel of the court. Those remarks, said Mr Hammond, showed the respect the federation had at that time for thec'ourt, and also indicated the respect it would show to any award of the court. Unless Mr Roberta was prepared to give an assurance that the awards would be re-

spected, ho submitted the employers were entitled to know what views the federation held towards the court at the present time Did Mr Roberts's appearance in court indicate that he had recognised the error of his ways: that he should return to seek tho favours of the court, the same court that he had asked tho public to believe was 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 beneficial results in a very short space of time. The employers were in the position of being able to raise an objection to the present application, but would not do so in the hope that the application was an indication that tho award would be respected by the federation. The employers were content to leave matters entirely in tho court’s hands, but would suggest that the court ascertain Mr Roberta's present frame of mind. His Honor said that to adopt Mr Hammond’s suggestion would be to ask Mr Roberts 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. Mr Roberts said Mr Hammond was introducing matter that was not before the court. There was a law dealing with disputes, and the waterside workers, like all other people, must submit to the law of the country. He suggested that Mr Hammond was introducing the matter at a convenient period when the elections were so close at hand. He was of opinion that the award had been made in error. If an amendment was not made he could assure the court that there would bo no unions left to carry on at all in some parts of the dominion. Reverting to Mr Hammond’s suggestion, he would like to state that he locked on it as foreign matter, and consequently would not reply to it. He considered that Mr Hammond’s statement was quite uncalled for. Mr Hammond said he did not question Mr Roberts’s right to make his present application, but in view of his intimation that the waterside workers had finished with the court it might be helpful to the employers and tho court if Mr Roberts were to explain his inconsistency in making his present application His Honor said the court had power under the Act to make the amendment asked for in event of an error having been mark When it amended the draft award it did so because it thought the federation wanted such an amendment. This was due evi- . -1 .j —a; _ xi.*

dently to a misunderstanding, as the court was quite clear as to what had taken place, or to Mr Roberts not having made himself clear. The matter would bo put right. “As regards Mr Roberts’s remarks concerning the award/ said his Honor. *1 suppose the awards of the court cannot please everybody. It docs saein 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 the public pi css.