CLERICAL UNIONS.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 179, 30 June 1937, Page 2

CLERICAL UNIONS.

PLAINTIFFS’ ARGUMENT

POSITION IN EVENT OF DISPUTE

Per Press Association

WELLINGTON, June 29. Continuing the argument in the case of the Otago and South and Stock and Stations Agents’ Clerical Employees’ Trade Union, which is asking the Court to quash the Otago clerical workers’ award and declare that union invalid. counsel for the plaintiffs said that if a dispute arose between members of the General Clerical Union and the employers it was very possible that when the assessors were appointed a large number of the employers involved would have no real representation among the assessors who, lie said, had received greatly increased powers by the 19J6 amendment to the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act • Counsel added that, with various types of employers bound bv the award covering the General Clerical Workers’ Union, there was very little likelihood of the employers’ assessors having knowledge of the innumerable industries concerned The majority ot the employers would be in the hands of the assessors, in whose nomination they had no voice and from whose views they dissented. Reference was also made to Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act to show that the Legislature intended that the term “industry” was to be construed with reference to tile business of tliG employer, not the employee. Mr ,T. C. Mowat (Dunedin). for plaintiff, made tlie following submissions on behalf of plaintiffs: # (1) That the refusal of the registrar to register plaintiff union or society as an industrial union on the ground that, its members could belong to defendant union was illegal and m excess of his jurisdiction. . (2) That plaintiff society is entitled to a writ of mandamus commanding the registrar to register the society as ail industrial union and not merely directing him to consider its application. Counsel contended that, it the contention on behalf of plaintiff’s that defendant union was an invalid body and ought, therefore, to he quashed was correct, plaintiff society could not be refused registration for the reason given bv the registrar. In any event at the point of time the refusal was made there was not any existing industrial union to which the members of plaintiffs’ society could belong. The presentation of argument on behalf of defendants was commenced by Mr 11. F. O’Leary. Iv.C. Ho said that he would not refer to certain historical and other matters mentioned by counsel for plaintiffs to create an atmosphere of prejudice against defendant union. He submitted:

(1) That defendant union is a properly registered union under the I. 0. and A. Act. (21 There was a dispute ivlnch was an industrial dispute and to that dispute wero the requisite parties to give jurisdiction to the Court of Arbitration. The award of March 10, 193' , is a valid award. (3) In respect, of Section G of the I.C and A. Act, the registrar of industrial unions is given power to enquire whether applicant society is one qualified to bo registered. Counsel said that however inconclusive the registrar’s findings might be, that clerical work is an industry, it was urged that a certificate as to registration etidowed the union with the status or an industrial union under the Act. (4) That acceptance of submission o meets the allegations made by plaintiffs in the statement of claim (viz., that the award was a nullity and made without jurisdiction) and establishes that the award was made between a valid industrial union on tlie one side and the employers on the other. (5) Determination of what is an industry for all purposes relative to the Act is a matter which the legislature has loft entirely to the decision of the Arbitration Court and Section Ji affords-protection against nnv allegedly erroneous finding of the Court, it is contended that the Act recognises and provides for what are termed craft or vocational unions in addition to unions in respect of-enterprises in which the employer and employee are associated. , , This, in turn, depends on tlie meaning of “industry” as defined in the Act .Does “industry” mean or is it referable solelv to an enterprise in which the employers and employees are associated or engaged, or does it mean also a vocation or persons doing a particular kind of work in connection with several different classes of such enterprises ? Defendants’ case is that it covers both meanings. ■ The hearing was adjourned.