GROCERS’ DISPUTE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18266, 8 December 1933, Page 8

GROCERS’ DISPUTE

MAKING OF AWARD INVALIDITY ALLEGED SUPREME COURT ACTION (Per Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, this day. An important case concerning the grocery trade was heard in the Supreme Court this morning, when several of the larger firms ,in Canterbury sought a writ of certiorari declaring that an industrial agreement said to have been made on May 20, 1933, should be quashed, and declared invalid. Mr Justice Ostler heard the proceedings. The plaintiffs alleged that, the agreement; was the agreement of' the assessors, and not of the parties to the dispute, that the Council of Conciliation was not validly constituted in accordance with the Act, and that the industrial dis'pute was not properly constituted.

The plaintiffs were the .Self-Help Coop., Limited, Star Stores, Limited, and the New Zealand Farmers’ Co-opera-tive and others. The defendants were Samuel Ritchie, Conciliation Commissioner, and others, including the

clerk of awards and the union secre tary.

Mr Stevenson, for the plaintiffs, said the case was one of a scries arising from the passing of the Industrial Conciliation Arbitration Amendment Act, 1932, which had been interpreted to mean that any agreement was to .be .an agreement of assessors, and it was considered that an agreement could be made if all the assessors agreed, although all of the parties might not agree. Such a view on the part of conciliation commissioners had been endorsed by the Arbitration Court, but the Court of Appeal held that the agreement should be agreed to by the parties to the agree-

ment, and if there was any disagreement among the 'parties there could be no agreement, even though the assessors might be prepared to sign the agreement. His Honor declared that the legislation would become a farce if the assessors agreed and then other parties to the award said they would not agree. Mr Stevenson replied that the

legislation was a farce, but added that the difficulty could Ibe got over. In other main centres, similar instances had occurred, as, after large employers had started a dispute where no agreement had been reached, certain small employers had created a dispute with the union. Under tho Act, ail applicant could appoint four assessors, and the union could appoint four assessors. Large employers had then been joined with the union of workers, aud had not been allowed to appoint, respondent assessors. Larger employers were then brought before the Conciliation Council, upon which they did not have an assessor. The larger employers were not in, as it related to wages and other conditions. (Proceeding.)