COURT OF APPEAL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21997, 5 July 1933, Page 7

COURT OF APPEAL

INDUSTRIAL AGREEMENT CASE POSITION OF DISSENTING PARTIES. (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, July 4. The case of the Inspector of Awards versus R. and W. Hellaby, Ltd., was continued in the Court of Appeal to-day. Addressing the court for the plaintiff Mr A. H. Johnstone said that all industrial unions and a very large number of employers regarded the issues involved as of the greatest importance to them. If the construction of the amending statute contended for'by the defendants was upheld the functions of the Arbitration Court would cease so far as industrial disputes were concerned except where assessors by their vote decided to refer a dispute to the court. Furthermore, upon that construction all attempts at agreement by conciliation might be frustrated by one objector. .He submitted that the defendants were bound by the settlement made by the assessors whether in fact they agreed or.not. If the defendants wished to be excluded frpm the operation of the terms of settlement they had the right to apply to the Court of Arbitration for exclusion under section 6 of the amending Act.' He conceded that the legislation was exceedingly ill-drawn and the section was not aptly worded. He submitted, however, that where the ordinary rules of construction applied it would be seen that industrial disputes contemplated by section 5 must be settled by the assessors. . The court adjourned.

The Court of Appeal is hearing argument on a case stated for its opinion by the judge of the Arbitration Court, pursuant to section 105 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1925. The facts are that the plaintiff, an inspector of awards, instituted proceedings in the Court of Arbitration at Auckland for the recovery of a penalty for alleged J breach by R. and W. Hellaby, Ltd., of Auckland, of the butchers' industrial agreement, % made by the Conciliation Council on * May 3 of this year. The breach alleged was that the defendant employed a roundsman and failed to pay him not «less than the minimum rate of wages fixed by agreement. • The defendant admitted the act complained of, but contended that no offence had been committed on the ground that the said agreement was not valid, and that no settlement of the industrial dispute which gave rise to the agreement had, in fact, been made; that, moreover, the agreement was void in that it contained terms which were ultra vires, being in excess of the jurisdiction of the Conciliation Council. The defence relied on the fact that, Defore the agreement was made, a dispute had arisen in the Conciliation Court as to the appointment of assessors, and the defendant company, along with certain other master butchers cited as parties, withdrew upon giving notice. The question for the consideration of the court turned on whether the Conciliation Council had the right to hear the original dispute and make a settlement binding on parties who did not agree thereto.