OFFICE WORKERS’ AWARD

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19364, 30 June 1937, Page 8

OFFICE WORKERS’ AWARD

DISPUTE PROM OTAGO APPEAL COURT ARGUMENT OPENING OF DEFENCE (Por Press Association.) WELLINGTON, last night. Further proceedings took place in the Appeal Court this morning in the case of the Otago and Southland Stock and Station Agents Clerical Employees’ Trade Union and others, as the plaintiffs, versus the judge and members of the Arbitration Court, the Otago Clerical Workers’ Industrial Union, and the registrar of industrial unions, as the defendants. The plaintiffs contend that clerical work is not an industry within the meaning of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and that the defendant, union is not a society or union within the meaning of the Act. The plaintiffs are asking the court, to quash the Otago clerical workers’ award and declare that the union is invalid. The presentation of argument on behalf of the defendants was commenced by Mr. H. F. O’Leary, K.C. He said lie would not refer to certain historical and other matters mentioned by counsel for the plaintiffs to create an atmosphere of prejudice against the defendant union. He submitted: (1) That the defendant union is a properly registered union under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. (2) There was a dispute, which was an industrial dispute, and to that dispute were the requisite parties to give the jurisdiction to the Court of Arbitration. The award of March 10, 1987, is a valid award. (2) In respect of section (1 of the I.C. and A. Act, the registrar of industrial unions is given power to inquire whether the applicant society is one qualified to be. registered. However inconclusive the registrar’s findings might be that clerical work is an industry, it was urged that a certificate as to registration endowed the union with the status of an industrial union under the Act. (4) That the acceptance of submission three meets the allegations made by plaintiffs in the statement of claim, viz., that the award was a nullify and was made without jurisdiction, and establishes that the award was made between a valid industrial union on one side and the employers on the other. (5) The determination of what is an industry for all purposes relative to the Act is a matter which the Legislature has left entirely to the decision of the Arbitration Court, and section 97 affords protection against any allegedly erroneous finding of the court. It was contended by the deefndants that the Act recognised and provided for what were termed craft or vocational unions, in addition to unions in respect of enterprises in which the employer and employee were associated. This, in turn, depended on the meaning of “industry” as defined in the Act. It was asked did “industry” mean, or was it referable solely to an enterprise in which the employers and employees . were associted or engaged, or did it mean also the vocation of persons doing a particular kind of work in connetcion with several different classes of such enterprises? The case for the defendants was that it covered both meanings. The hearing was adjourned.