GROCERS’ AWARD

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19668, 9 December 1933, Page 4

GROCERS’ AWARD

APPLICATION TO HAVE IT QUASHED By TelegraDti—Press Association CHRISTCHURCH, December 8. An important case concerning the grocery trade was heard at the Supreme Court this morning, when several of the larger firms in Caffter--1 ry sought a writ of certiorari, declaring that the industrial agreement said to have been made on May 20, 1933, should be quashed, and declared invalid.

Mr justice Ostler heard the proceedings.

Plaintiffs alleged that the agreement was the agreement of the assessors and not of the parties to the dispute—that the Council of Conciliation was not validly constituted in accordance with the Act, and that an industrial dispute was not properly constituted.

The plaintiffs were the Self-Help Co-op.. Ltd., grocers, the Star Stores, Ltd., and the New Zealand Farmers’ Co-operative and others. The defendants were Samuel Ritchie, Conciliation Commissioner and others, including the clerk of awards and the Union secretary.

Mr Stevenson, for the plaintiffs, said the case was one of a series arising from the passing of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act, 1932, which had been interpreted to mean that any agreement was to be an agreement of the assessors, and it w r as considered that an agreement could be made if all the assessors agreed, although all of the parties might not agree. Such a view on the part of the Conciliation Commissioners had been endorsed by the Arbitration Court, but the Court of Appeal had held that the agreement should be agreed to by the parties to the agreement, and if there w T as any disagreement among the parties there could be no agreement, even though the assessors might be prepared to sign the agreement. His Honour declared that legislation would become a farce if the assessors agreed and then the other parties to the award said they would not agree. Mr Stevenson replied that the legislation was a farce, but added that the difficulty could be got over. In the other main centres similar instances had occurred, as after the large employers had started a dispute where no agreement had been reached certain smaller employers had then created a dispute with the Union. Under the Act the applicant could appoint four assessors and the Union could appoint four assessors. Large employers had then been joined witht the Union of Workers, and had not been allowed to appoint respondent assessors. The larger employers were then brought before the Conciliation Council, upon which they did not have assessors. The larger employers were not in favour of the agreement, particularly as it related to wages and other conditions. Counsel for defendants contended that though the agreement was said to be an agreement of assessors only and not of parties, it -was in fact, an agreement of the, parties present at tire crucial moment when the agr l rncnt was made. He a.'gued also that whether the plaintiffs agreed spec vie illy or not they were bound because they failed to dissent specifically, choosing to rely on their right of exemption. He held that the Council was validly constituted.