EXEMPTION FROM AWARDS SOUGHT

Southland Times, Issue 23769, 17 March 1939, Page 8

EXEMPTION FROM AWARDS SOUGHT

SOCIETIES NOT RUN FOR GAIN DECISION RESERVED BY ARBITRATION COURT (United Press Association) WELLINGTON, March 16. Legal submissions on an issue of considerable interest were heard by the Court of Arbitration in Wellington this week, the question being whether societies or institutions not run for pecuniary gain should be exempted from awards. The Court reserved its decision. The case was first heard on Tuesday when Mr H. J. Bishop appealed against the decisions of the Magistrate of the Industrial Court, Mr J. A. Gilmour, in adding the Manawatu and West Coast A and P. Association as a party to the Clerical Workers’ Award (except. regarding the overtime provisions for show days and the 14 days preceding them) and the Wellington Y.M.C.A. as a party to the New Zealand Private Hotel Employees’ Award (except regarding the engagement of staff). In conjunction with the appeals, Mr Bishop sought exemption from the awards for both appellants. He submitted neither was run for pecuniary gain and the decisions of the Magistrate were outside the jurisdiction of the court under Section 154, (Pecuniary Gain) of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act and that they were contrary to the Court’s policy. Section 154 of the Act states that no award or industrial agreement made after the beginning of this Act shall affect the employment of any worker who is employed otherwise than for the direct or indirect pecuniary gain of the employer, provided that this section shall not be deemed to exempt any local authority or body corporate or any chartered club or racing club, trotting club or hunt club from the operation of any award or industrial agreement. ■ Mr Bishop submitted that neither of the appellants was a corporate body in the nature of a local authority- and, therefore, was exempt. CORPORATE BODIES For the respondents, Mr T. P. Cleary submitted that the appellants were corporate bodies and, therefore, came under the jurisdiction of the Court and that Mr Bishop’s interpretation that any local authority or body corporate meant any local authority or body corporate in the nature of a local authority did violence to the words of the section. Discussing the contention that it was contrary to the policy of the Court to join to awards institutions not in operation for pecuniary gain, Mr Cleary submitted that the question of pecuniary gain was irrevelant in the case of bodies corporate. It was only in the case of unincorporated institutions that the Court was concerned to inquire into the question of pecuniary gain. Most of the cases relied on by Mr Bishop were cases in which unincorporated bodies had secured exemption from awards. The Court had frequently joined such bodies as A. and P. Associations to awards and it could not be said to be contrary to the Court’s policy that this should be done.

The Court would commonly exempt an employer whose principal business was not covered by an award, but the present cases were not in that category, said Mr Cleary. He added that the trend of legislative amendments had been to restrict and not to enlarge exemptions. To grant a partial exemption on the undertaking of the exempted employer to abide by the conditions of the award would be destructive of the principles on which the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act was based.

The question was not whether members of corporate bodies acquired gain, but whether the corporate bodies did, submitted Mr Cleary. No one would suggest that the Y.M.C.A. or an A. and P. Society were conducted for the purpose of enriching the members or officials, but it was common ground that both did make charges, which resulted in profits to the corporate body. That was the crux of the matter.