AWARD DISPUTE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25385, 17 November 1943, Page 4

AWARD DISPUTE

HARBOUR BOARD EMPLOYEES ARBITRATION COURT TO HEAR APPEALS (P.A.) WELLINGTON, Nov. 16. “If this is a matter of contention on which the judge of the court is asked to exercise his discretion, it seems regrettable that there should be remarks in the press on it,” said Mr Justice Tyndall when the Court of Arbitration to-day made a fixture for the hearing of three appeals against magisterial decisions in cases concerning Harbour Board employees. Mr J. F. B. Stevenson, representing the New Zealand Harbour Board Employers’ Union, said he proposed to ask in all three appeals that the judge of the court should exercise his discretion under section 105 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act and state a case for the opinion of the Court of Appeal. Mr A. L. Monteith, a member of the court, remarked that the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, had already decided that the matter had to go to the Court of Appeal. He added that the opinion of the Court of Appeal did not bind the Court of Arbitration.

Mr Stevenson: In the past this court, if it has sought the opinion of the Court of Appeal, has paid the greatest respect to that opinion. His Honor: That may bind the judge, but I do not know about the majority of the court.

Another aspect of the matter was that the Chief Justice had given a judgment holding that the award was valid, Mr Stevenson said. An appeal had been lodged by the harbour boards against that judgment. His Honor: Ought we not therefore postpone the hearing of these appeals?

Mr Stevenson submitted that two courses were open, first to postpone the hearing of the appeals, and, secondly, to send forward a case on the appeals for the opinion of the Court of Appeal. If the decision were against the harbour boards, finality Would be reached in the whole matter.

Mr Monteith: Someone might take it to the Privy Council. Mr G. F. Grieve, inspector of awards at Wellington, said he had been asked by Mr M. J. Gresson, counsel for the inspector of awards at Christchurch, to have his case, an appeal against the magistrate’s decision in the case of the Lyttelton Harbour Board v. the Inspector of Awards, transferred to Wellington for hearing if the court proposed to proceed with any hearing. Mr Gresson wished to- be heard on the question of the judge of the court stating a case for'the Court of Appeal. “ He intends to oppose this, and I will also on behalf of the department,” said Mr Grieve. His Honor: It is a matter of contention then. It is a great pity that anybody should pass any remarks on it. “We would not agree to a case stated by the judge of this court on these appeals to be heard bv the Court of Appeal along with the appeal pro ceedings pending from the judgment of the Chief Justice,” said Mr Grieve. The fixture was approved for November 26.