"BLANKET" CLAUSE

Taranaki Daily News, 15 September 1939, Page 8

"BLANKET" CLAUSE

APPLICATION ATTACKED METAL PRESSER WAGES The "blanketing" clause of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbjtration Amendment Act, 1937, No. 2, was attacked for the first time on Wednesday when tjie inspector of awards invoked it in proceedings against G. C. Kibby, metai presser, in the Arbitration Court at New Plymouth. After hearing argument the court, through Mr. Justice O'Regan, said it would take time to consider the technical points raised by counsel. Kibby manufactures toe plates for shoes, and it was alleged that he committed a breach of the North Taranaki, Wellington, Canterbury, Otago and Southland industrial districts metal trades workers' award when he employed W. Holdt, a process worker, at £3 10s a week of 40 hours from December 15, 1938, to March 11, 1939, instead of paying him 2s oid an hour in accordance with the award. Mr. F. Wilson, for the Labour Department, said Holdt received £3 5s a week from December 15 to January 31, and £3 10s from then to March 11. Five Taranaki firms were cited in the award, but there were 17 that were affected. Kibby was not cited as a party, but Mr. Wilson contended that he was brought within the terms of the award by the provisions of section 5, sub-section 1 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act, 1937, No. 2. This section provided for representative employers being cited to a' dispute, it being left with the conciliation commissioner to decide whether the parties cited were representative of the employers in 'the industrial district, Mr. Wilson said. He argued that as the award proceedings had gone forward the commissioner was apparently satisfied. Once the award was made the "blanketing" clause of the amendment Act became operative, binding all employers in the industry covered by the award, whether they were cited or not. In this case the award mentioned power press operators and the manufacture of heel and toe tips. Kibby ernployed a power press operator and manufactured heel and toe plates, and therefore he must be held to come within the scope of the award. Mr. J. H. 'Sheat contended that the "blanketing" clause did not apply to Kibby for four main reasons. The first was that the amending statute applied only to applications by workers, whereas the application on which this award was based was from the employers. Secondly, the "blanketing" clause in the Act applied only to applications for an award in a single industrial district and not to awards covering several districts, as this one did. Thirdly, by virtue of the "blanketing" clause the uncited party could only be made a respondent. In this instance the respondents to the dispute for an award were the workers, and not the employers. Fourthly, even if the "blanketing" clause were applicable, the industry in which Kibby was engaged was not represented by counsel as required in the proceedings that led up to the award.