QUASHING OF AWARD

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26780, 25 May 1948, Page 6

QUASHING OF AWARD

APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT FAR-REACHING POSSIBILITIES P.A. CHRISTCHURCH, May 24. Alleging that the New Zealand tea rooms and restaurant employees’ award was invalid in law and made in excess of the jurisdiction conferred by law on the Arbitration Court and did not comply with the provisions of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, Suckling Bros., Ltd., boot manufacturers (Mr D. J. Hewitt)., proceeded against the Arbitration Court in the Supreme Court to-day asking for a writ of certiorari to quash the award. For the Canterbury Hotel and Restaurant and Related Trades Employees’ Union, Mr B. A. Barrer submitted that the plaintiff’s motion should be struck out. Mr Barrer claimed that on general grounds the motion for a writ was misconceived and that the case must fail. The motive point, said Mr Barrer, was the eligibility of the workers for membership of the union. Mr Hewitt said that Suckling Bros, had established a private cafeteria for their employees. The crucial point was that the cafeteria did not sell food to the public, but only to the staff at nominal sums. In 1945 Suckling Bros, had been cited as parties to the award covering public cafeterias, but the following year they applied to be struck.out. The application was heard in March, 1947, but the award was made in October, 1947, the application being refused. Mr Hewitt submitted that the Arbitration Court had no jurisdiction to make Suckling Bros, a party to the award. Mr Barrer said that the plaintiff’s story of great dissension in the industry was not supported by the facts. Should the Supreme Court grant a writ of certiorari, it would have a most unfortunate effect on all 1 awards, because unless the membership clause in a union’s rules coincided with the definition of a “ worker ” every award in the country could be attacked. Roland Thomas Bailey, an industrial adviser, said that six firms in Christchurch were objecting to being parties to the award. At first the firms were not interested, but when they received what they considered were unreasonable requests they asked witness for advice. He told them the best thing to do was to go on with the writ and then try to get a separate award for cafeterias. j His Honor reserved his decision. ,