GUILD OR UNION

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16307, 23 December 1920, Page 7

GUILD OR UNION

CH.CH. CLERKS AND THEIR EMPLOYERS. COURT REFUSES AN AWARD MR M’CULLOUGH DISSENTS The Arbitration Court has decided, by a majority of members, not to make an award in a dispute between the Christchurch Clerks’, Cashiers’ and Ciffieo Employees’ Union and the Canterbury freezing companies. When the case was beard in Christchurch it was shown that, the* companies’ employees, with employees in allied industries, had formed themselves into a, guild and were strongly opposed to being brought under the provisions of an award of tho Court, It was also shown that practically tho whole of the clerical stalls of tho companies were members of tho ifuild, which has entered into an agreement with tho employers in regard to wages and conditions satisfactory to both employers and employees. Only a small proportion of members of the guild are members' of the union, which brought the dispute before the Court.

The Court’s reasons for not making an award are :

(1) That there is no genuine dispute, between the employees of the companies and the employees’ employers, which either requires or justifies the interference of the Court.

(2) That tho union is not fairly, representative of tho employees sought to be brought under the provisions of tho award, and ought not, therefore, to bo permitted to disturb tho arrangement made by the employees in their corporate capacity with their employers, and under which arrangement they are working in peace and harmony. The judgment explains that there is ample remedy by civil process in case of a breach of the agreement made between the guild and tho companies. “It seems to us,” the Court adds, “that it is quite absurd to suppose, as was suggested at the hearing, that a body of men who, in order to retain tho positions they hold in the service of their employer's, must necessarily Ire of good education and superior intelligence, are not fully capable of taking the most effective, steps available for securing and protecting their own interests.” The judgment concludes: 11 Section 72 of the Industrial Oonciljintion and Arbitration Act, 190S, expressly provides that the Court may refuse to make an award if, for any reason, it thinks it ought not to do so, and the majority of the Court are of opinion, for the reasons slated, that no award should he made in this case, and the present application is therefore refused.”

Mr <t. „ A. M'Gullough, the employees’ representative on the Court, in a long statement attached- to the judgment, explains his reasons for dissenting from the decision. “I am firmly convinced that nn award is desirable,” ho says. “The formation of guilds and their subsequent arrangement with employers for improved conditions clearly indicates that there are grievances calling for settlement. The weakness of the guild, form of organisation is apparent from the fact that even though an agreement is arrived at, there is no legal tribunal by which such can be enforced, nor any simple method by which employers who wero unwilling to accept such agreement could bo induced or compelled to do so. The only apparent way in which such unwilling employers could bo forced to acquiesce in any such settlement would appear to be the old and barbarous method of withholding labour, or the strike weapon. • I contend, as earnestly as possible, that an award is desirable, in the interests of tho individual workers in the industry, the union, and tho guild. Assuming, further, that tho Court refuse to make an award, wo then would have the spectacle of tho tribunal set up to administer 'the law for tho settlement of industrial disputes giving preference to tho views, and acceding to the request, of an organisation admittedly sot up to defeat u union registered under the law. The secretary of tho guild in Christchurch stated definitely that it was formed for tho express purpose of preventing the Court making an award. T contend that the Court flight, therefore, to accede to the ro quest of the union and make an award cam bodying tbo terms agreed to in both Dunedin and Christchurch, but withholding the preference danse if thought desirable. In this way, both the union and the guild can. exist side by side, and probably learn to work tol gethcr in harmony in a short time. ! hey both appear to bo actuated bv tbo very laudable desire of benefiting their members by collective bargaining the union accepting tho method prescribed bv tbo Legislature, the ouiild refusing to accept tbo jurisdiction of „' n nma U P *° administer tho