THE GROCERY TRADE

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXIV, Issue 939, 8 December 1933, Page 7

THE GROCERY TRADE

Action to Quash Industrial Agreement. LARGER EMPLOYERS’ MOVE. An important case concerning the grocery trade in Canterbury was heard in the Supreme Court this morning, when the larger firms sought a writ ot certiorari declaring that the industrial agreement said to have been made on May 20. 1933, should be quashed and declared invalid. Mr Justice Ostler heaFd 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 the industrial dispute was not properly constituted. The plaintiffs were the Self-llelp Coop., Ltd., grocers, carrying on business at 339, Moorhouse Avaiue, and at other addresses in Christchurch, Kincaid’s, Ltd., Wardell’s, Ltd., F. A. Cook, Ltd., Tucks, Ltd.. Star Stores, Ltd., and the New* Zealand Farmers’ Cooperative Association of Canterbury, Ltd. The defendants ■were Samuel Ritchie, Conciliation Commissioner, Herbert Janies Pankhurst, grocer's assistant, Samuel James M’llroy, grocer’s assistant. Thomas Henry Butterfield, grocer's assistant, William James Green, union secretary. Charles Janies Forbes, grocer. John Stewart Chapman, manager, Frank Smith, grocer, Eric Gray, grocer, and Walter Parker, Clerk of Awards. Mr Stevenson, of Wellington, appeared for all the plaintiffs, and Mr Archer represented all the defendants except the Conciliation Commissioner and the Clerk of Awards. One of a Series. Mr Stevenson said that 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 than any agreement was to be the agreement of the assessors, and it was 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 Conciliation Commissioners had been endorsed by the Arbitration Court, but the Court of Appeal had held that an agreement should be agreed to by the parties to the agreement, and if there was anv disagreement among the parties there could be no agreement, even though the assessors might be prepared to sign an agreement. Ilis Honor declared that the legislation would become a farce if the assessors agreed and then other parties to the award said that they would not agree. Mr Stevenson replied that the legislation was a farce, but added that the difficulty could be got over. Tn the other main centres similar instances had occurred as after large employers had stated a dispute where no agreement had been reached certain smaller employers had then created a dispute with the union. Joined with Union. Under the Act, the applicant could appoint four assessors and the union could appoint four assessors, added Mr Stevenson. The large employers had then been joined with 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 an assessor. The larger employers were not in favour of the agreement, particularly as it related to wages and other conditions. Plaintiffs’ Submissions. Mr Stevenson’s submissions were: (1) That the terms of settlement were the agreement of the assessors and not the parties; (2) that plaintiffs never agreed to the settlement and therefore were not bound; (3) that the Court was not validly constituted as the plaintiffs were given no voice in the appointment of assessors; (4) that section 108 of the 1932 Act had not been complied with by the union. He said that that section set out that the Council could not have an industrial dispute referred to it until the union had held a secret ballot. Replying to his Honor, counsel said he would put his fourth point as follows;—“That no industrial dispute was ever properly constituted between the applicant employers and the union as the proposals had never been considered by the union.” His Honor declared that the section could not apply if the union were cited to appear, and counsel agreeing, withdrew his last contention. Two Grocery Groups. Mr Archer stated that it was admitted that there were two groups of grocers in Christchurch and that there was disagreement between them. The plaintiffs represented a small section while the award had been made by a large section of the grocers. A section of the employers might create a dispute but the award agreed upon should bind all the employers. The defendants had believed that they were acting according to the Act and when in doubt they had applied to the Arbitration Court, where the ruling had supported them. (Proceeding.)