Christchurch Firm With Cafeteria Sues Arbitration Court

Wanganui Chronicle, 25 May 1948, Page 5

Christchurch Firm With Cafeteria Sues Arbitration Court

(P.A.) Christchurch, May 24. Alleging that the New Zealand Tearooms and Restaurant Employees Award was invalid in law and made in excess of the jurisdiction conferred by law on the Arbitration Court and did not comply with the provisions of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, Suckling Bros., Ltd., boot manufacturers (Mr. D. I. Hewitt) proceeded against the Arbitration Court in the Supreme Court today asking for a writ of certiorari to quash the award. For the Canterbury Hotel and Restaurant and Related Trades Employees’ Union, Mr. B. A. Barrer submitted that plaintiff's motion be struck out. Mr. Barrer claimed that on general grounds the motion for a writ was misconceived and that the case must fail. The motive point, said Mr. Barrer, was the eligibility of workers for membership of the union.

Mr. Hewitt said that Suckling Bros, had established a private cafeteria for its employees. The crucial point was that the cafeteria did not sell food to the public, but only to the staff at nominal sums. In 1945, Suckling Bros, had been cited as parties to an award covering public cafeterias, but in the following year they applied to be struck out. The application was heard in March, 1947, but the award was made in October, 1946, the application being refused. Mr. Hewitt submitted that the Arbitration Court had no jurisdiction to make Suckling Bros, a party to the award. Mr. A. Barrer said that plaintiff's story of great dissension in tile industry was not supported by the facts. Should the Supreme Court grant a writ of certiorari it would have a most unfortunate effect on all awards, because unless the membership clause in all unions coincided with the definition of “workers” every award In the country could be attacked. Roland Thomas Bailey, an industrial adviser, said that six firms in Christchurch were not objecting to being parties to the award. At first the firms were not interested, but when they received what they considered were unreasonable requests they asked witness for advice. He told them the best thing to do was to go on with the writ and then try to get a separate award for cafeterias. His Honour reserved his decision.