WATERSIDE WORKERS’ AWARD

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18997, 19 October 1923, Page 4

WATERSIDE WORKERS’ AWARD

ARBITRATION COURT'S JURISDICTION. ARGUMENT IN SUPREME COURT. IPeb United Press Association.) WELLINGTON. October 18. The Full Bench of the Supreme Court commenced this morning the hearing of argument in the case of the New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Federation Industrial Association of Workers v. Francis Vernon Frazer and other members of the Court of Arbitration. This was a motion for a writ of prohibition against, the Arbitration Court, preventing it from enforcing the award dated November 17, 1922, upon the ground that certain of its provisions wore in excess of the jurisdiction ol the court, Mr P. J. O’Regan appeared for plaintiff, and Mr C. R. Skerrcit. K.C., and with him Mr •!. F. B. Stevenson for the defendants.

When the case was called Mr Justice Salmond said it appeared that the proper procedure was not by way of application for a writ of prohibition, but by writ of certiorari to quash the award. By agreement of counsel the proceedings were amended by adding an alternative motion for a writ of certiorari. r lhe main ground of attack on the award was in relation to clauses 26 (a), (b), and (c), and 46 (a), and (b) of the award in so far us these clauses purported to impose upon the workers bound thereby the obligation of standing by pending employment. These provisions, it was contended, were in excess of the jurisdiction conferred on the Arbitration Court because (1) the jurisdiction of the court was limited to the questions arising during the time the relation of master and servant existed; (2) the workers employed by the award were employed casually and by the hour; (3) the relation of master and servant did not exist until the workers were actually engaged.

Mr Skerrett, for the defendants, raised a preliminary objection that the Supreme Court had no power to deal with the motion. The Arbitration Court had properly entered on the inquiry into an industrial dispute, and its award on such a matter was._ he said, made by Statute and not reviewatjle by the Supreme Courn or by any other court. Mr O’Regan, for the plaintiff federation, in dealing with this preliminary point, said the Supreme Court had power to prohibit the Arbitration Court or quash its award if the Arbitration Court exceeded the jurisdiction given it by the Statute which set up the Court of Arbitration. Argument is proceeding.