APPEAL SUCCEEDS

Southland Times, Issue 22074, 22 July 1933, Page 5

APPEAL SUCCEEDS

REQUIREMENTS OF I.C. AND A. ACT. PARTIES TO DISPUTE. (Per United Press Association.) Wellington, July 21. The Court of Appeal has delivered its reserved judgment in the case of the Inspector of Awards v. R. and W. Hellaby, Ltd. Judgment was given in favour of the contentions advanced on behalf of the defendant, R. and W. Hellaby. The Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, delivered a very lengthy _ judgment which he concluded by saying that it did not appear to him to be necessary to answer seriatim the various parts of the questions submitted by the Arbitration Court Judge. He thought that the whole question should be answered as follows: “What is required by section 5 (1) of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act of 1932 is the settlement arrived at by the agreement of the parties to the dispute who are present, or are represented, at the inquiry, and the terms of settlement, though they require to be signed by all the assessors, are nevertheless effective only if such parties to the dispute have agreed upon or consented to such terms. If any of the parties have refused to agree there can be no settlement and the only provision to meet such a case is contained in section 7, sub-section (1) of the Act.” The other members of the Court, by separate judgments, agreed with the result of the Chief Justice’s judgment. Mr Justice Herdman answered all the questions seriatim. Costs of 35 guineas were ordered to be paid by the Inspector of Awards to the defendant company.

Plaintiff, an Inspector of awards, instituted proceedings in the Court of Arbitration in Auckland for the recovery of a penalty for an alleged breach by R. and W. Hellaby, Ltd., of the Auckland butchers’ industrial agreement made by the Conciliation Council on May 3 of this year. The breach alleged was that defendant employed a roundsman and failed to pay him not less than the minimum rate of wages fixed by the 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; and 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. They relied on the fact that before 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. Questions for consideration of the Court turned on whether the Conciliation Council had a right to hear the original dispute and make a settlement binding on parties who did not agree thereto.