THE GROCERY TRADE-

Waikato Times, Volume 114, Issue 19124, 8 December 1933, Page 6

THE GROCERY TRADE-

AN IMPORTANT CASE. DISPUTE OVER AGREEMENT. LARGE FIRAIS SEEK WRIT. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, Friday. An impo'rfSnt case concerning the grocery trade was heard in the Supremo Court this morning, when several of the larger firms In Canterbury sought a writ of certiorari declaring that an industrial agreement said to have been made on Alay 20, 1933, should be quashed and declared Invalid. Air Justice Ostler heard the proceedings. Plaintiffs alleged that the agreement was an 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. Plaintiffs were Self Help, Co-operative, Ltd., Grocers’ Star Stores, Ltd., and the New Zealand Farmers’ Co-operative, and others. Defendants were Samuel Ritchie, Conciliation Commissioner, and others, ■including the Clerk of Awards, and the union secretary. Case for Plaintiffs. Air 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 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 the Conciliation Commissioners had been endorsed by the Arbitration Court, but the Court of Appeal held that the agreement should be agreed to by the parties to the agreement, and If there was 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 the 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 he added that, the difficulty could he got over. In other main centres similar instances had occurred, as after the largo ein ; ployers bad 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 (lie large employers had then been joined with the union of workers and had not been allowed to appoint the respondent assessors. The larger employers were then brought before' the Conciliation Council, up On which they did not. have’assessors. The larger employers were not in favour of the agreement, particularly as if related to wages and other conditions. ./Proceeding.).