CITY COUNCIL’S CLERKS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17190, 6 November 1923, Page 9 (Supplement)

CITY COUNCIL’S CLERKS.

POSITION UNDER AWARD. I The Arbitration Court to-day resum- I id hearing of an application by the l ’ity Council for exemption from the lerks’, cashiers’, and office employees’ j twnrrl. His Honor Mr Justice Frazer >resided. With him were Mr H. j . lunter, employees’ representative, and , ill W. Scott, employers’ representa- < ive. Mr F. Cooper appeared in sup- '■ >ort of the application, which was op- , >osed by Mr R. D. Martin, secretary if the union. 1 The application was made on the j rrnund that the City Council was ex mpted, as far as salaried officers were nncerned. by section 68 of the Muni- ( ipal Corporations Art, and that, under hat section, the Court had no jurisliction to .-join the City Council as a >arty to the award. During the arjspinent. a decision by the Court of Apical was quoted. The Court of Appeal, ome years ago. in dispute with the Itago painters, was asked if municipal ■orporations and harbour boards are subject to awards. It decided that ho Arbitration Court lias jurisdiction, n respect to employees on wages, but iot in respect to salaried officers. Clause 68 provides that the council uay by resolution appoint persons to do town clerk, treasurer, surveyor, colectors and other officers and servants is it thinks necessary, and may pay chem. such salaries and allowances out at the district fund as it thinks fit. Mr Martin said that members of the '/ity Council’s clerical staff had signed i petition asking for exemption, but die court should place very little value m the petition. It was quite easy to obtain signatures to a. petition of that character. It was well-known that there had been considerable alteration in the City Council’s policy, which had , affected the spirit of the whole of the City Council’s employees, general bourers and all. The petition was signed by 9o per cent of the employees, but the’ majority did not realise the importance of their signatures. He was satisfied that* they did not wish to be cut off from the privileges of the award. Mr Cooper : Are you going to prove that in evidence? Mr Martin said that the position was gone into before the Conciliation Council, at which the City Council was represented by the Mayor. Mr Cooper: The Mayor denied that. He said he represented several parties to the dispute. Mr Martin said that the City Council took it upon itself to call a meeting of representatives of local bodies, and the City Council appointed members to attend the Conciliation Council. It must be admitted that the City Council, the principal body, had its representative at the Conciliation Council in the person of the Mayor. The petition was sent in by the staff, but- the Conciliation Council refused to deal with it, and send it to the Court. The Mayor must have represented the City Council because he went away and left Mr Neville, acting-Town Clerk, to watch his interests. After an agreement was reached at the Conciliation Council, the Mayor reported to the Finance Committee that the increases would mean £IOOO a year in the clerical staff. One member, who received £4. 6s Bd, would be increased to £o 3s. The increases would range from os to 15s a week. Was it feasible that the employees concerned would ask the council to deprive them of that benefit under an award? In the union, there had been forty members of the City Council’s staff. Eleven of them bad signed a typed circular resigning, and of these eleven, eight received remuneration in excess of the award rates- It showed that the staff wished for the Court’s protection. If the Court decided that the City Council’s staff generally was exempt from the award, the Electricity Department at least must come into the award, because it was a trading concern, operating for profit, and competing with other trading concerns. Mr Cooper : Who appoints the hands? Mr Martin : The general manager. Mr Cooper : Who controls the general manager ? Air .Martin ; The Electriicty Committee. Mr Coojicr; Who controls it? Mr Martin: It practically controls it self. Anybody who has had any experience of the City Council knows that it is hard to get any information as to that department. His Honor .said that the point was not essential, as the Act provided that any resolution by a committee was as effective as if passed by the whole council. Mr Martin saiu that it was not an employees’ application, but an application by an employer. The City Council simply was challenging the Court's jurisdiction under section 68 of the Municipal Corporations Act. ! His Honor said that the Court had | power to join bodies, j Mr Martin said that the Appeal ’ Cowrt had given Its decision on the j basis of all employees in the same j His Honor said that the point wan | whether all officers should bo ‘exclude.! by section 68, or whether the section • excluded only the higher grafie clerks i There was some difficulty in drawing | the line. The salary in itself was not j sufficient distinction. An officer in ! Christchurch might receive £3OO a year and an officer in the same position in ; Lyttelton £2OO a year. I Mr Martin said that the union’s ob- ; ject was to protect tho rank and file. S Mr Cooper said that Air Martin had ’ made ex parte statements. No one who I signed the petition had expressed a wish —officially, at least—to withdraw. A point had been made of salaries being boosted up by the previous award, but ! in the period covered by award there had been general increases irrespective of awards. The City Council’s employees had expressed themselves un- : mistakably—they’ did not wish to bo ; attached to an award. On that ground • alone the Court must exempt them. ; He could not seo how tho Court couM entertain the idea of bringing those eraj ployees under the award. On broader ‘ grounds, it was argued that the Court • had no jurisdiction, and should not be 1 asked to do something out of its jurisi diction. The Act was particularly clear i ir\ that direction. It. said to the i Court: ‘‘This is no job tor you.” The | question was settled by the Court of I Appeal’s decision. Four Judges, most j of whom had had years of experience ' in the Arbitration Court, decided that j local bodies’ officers in receipt of salaries were outside tho Court’s juris Atr Martin said that if the Court- • felt that it had no jurisdiction, it I would be expected to say so and an ; effort would bo made to have the Act : amended. j Air Cooper spoke in approval of the Mayor’s attitude at the Conciliation Council, saying that representatives l of parties there should go in the proper spirit, and that the Mayor hod recognised his duty to the citizens His Honor said that the Mayor was ; acting not- as Afayor but os the representative of all the local bodies coni corned. The Mayor could not have 1 been sure as to the Court’s position