ARBITRATION SYSTEM

Taranaki Daily News, 20 December 1924, Page 10

ARBITRATION SYSTEM

AN IMPORTANT POINT.

AGREEMENT OUTSIDE AWARD. COMPANY AND ITS WORKERS. By Telegranh—Press Association. ; Auckland, Last NigliK ■ A sequel to an. agreement betweerty Armstrong, Whitworth and contractors for the construction of the Arapuni dam, and the New Zealand. Worker*’ Union was enacted in the Ar? bitration Court to-day. The union is not registered under the Arbitration Act but under the Trades Union Ast/ and the agreement which has been tered into provides for overtime rates which are contrary to the provisions of the Arbitration Act. Applications brought on behalf of the Carpenters** Engineers’, Boilermakers* and Labourer*’ Unions to join the firm as a party their respective awards. Mr. Bloodworth represented the unions and Mr. Hammond appeared for Armstrong, Whitworth and Company. Mr. Bloodworth contended that the) company, having started business since* the drawing up of the award auto? matically under section 90 of the Arbi? tration Act, came under the provisioned of the awards. It w r as, he said, fot» the respondent company to show cauflq why it should not. His; Honour agreed that as it was admitted that the firm had commenced itef operations since the award wa* drawn up the- onus wa* now on it to show cause why. it sloruld be exempted. RIGHT OF UNION. ; Mr. Hammond stated that, in puvsu* ance of the policy pursued by the Min* ister for Public Works of letting public contracts by tender, -he firm of Armt strong and Whitworth had secured that for the building of the dam at Arapunjfc and an agreement had been entered intd by . the company with the employees# The court, he contended, had no juri*dic? tion as far as this agreement wa* coni* cerned, because it was in respect of Sr contract to which a Government department wa* a party, and therefore it came under the Public Contracts Act and not under the Arbitration Act. By virtue of the Public Contracts Act workers and employers were given liberty to tract, subject to certain conditions, in contrast with the Arbitration act, and for that reason the agreement made wa* ultra vire* and could not be fered with by the court. Dealing with the status of the New Zealand Workers’ Union, Mr. Hammond said .that the only difference between, it and a registered industrial union was that, the workers’ union, by reason of its non-registration, could not proceed under the Arbitration Ycl. His Honour; I think it is generally conceded that it has a certain right., We. are quite friendly towards it. Mr. Hammond: There have been cerU tain obviously inspired paragraphs flashed about the Dominion concerning it. His Honour: We are not under any. misapprehension. They have not done anything we have to complain about. The New Zealand Workers' I nion, is entitled to certain statutory recognition, qnd we are not likely to be influenced by any suggestion tha4>, it is wot registered under the full provision df the Arbitration Act, it should suffer. There is no objection to it* registration under a trades ••union.' - UNION’S VIEWPOINT. Mr. Cooke (secretary of the New Zealand Workers’ Union) traversed, the events leading up to the making..of the agreement. It was made in a)L good , faith and. no dispute was anticipated with the Auckland union. The men. were working under it and were qulto satisfied. lie read a statement signed by- 190 men at present- employed, expressing their satisfaction and opposing. J any interference with the agreement. I There were about 280 men on the. job and about 250 of them were financial member* of the union. They would like a 40-hou]/ week with an equivalent wage, but at present they were content . to work the 47 hours. This contract was regarded as -similar io one! under the Public Works.- or, rather, not out of'the, hands of the New Zealand Goy* priiment. and it was considered that, one jagneement.-should cover 'all workers, i . f : \Mr. Cooke then correct xl a staiemeflt.which ’ had been given publicity.: that. (the- member* of the union were to-, .b®. pa’id Overtime, after working a 47-bo;ir,. jweek. The position was that, over time paid after eight and a half .hours’ work on- .-five days a week and after ■ four and a half hours on Saturday.. Bloodworth, in reply, assured- the. ycnirt'alntt the members of his union •for whom he was appearing were not contteT'fied about the preference clause and the union only wanted, an •inierpiHS? itwt,ion of- the position under the.award; jWfoat the court was being asked to.dos Iby • Mr; Hammond in considering -.t,ha, cat*©" ThiidiCJ' the Public Contracts Avufe to defeat the ends of the. Arbitral. A-ctb A* for the contention •I hc ’. agix-enient came under the i Public Cont raets A.?L ho submitted-that thoGov* >. .ernniiiubt. by- -entering into-:a contract with a private firm, has contracted itself out. ,: If- a- New Zealand firm hail been a successful tenderer it would have been expected to abide by the awards. The court reserved it* decision.