Image TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage Tile
Image size: 4608x6656 Scale: 35% - PanoJS3
Page overview thumbnail

Article text

RAILWAY EMPLOYEES' GRIEVANCE
ARBITRATION COURT PRO
CEEDINGS.
Perth, Sept. 10.
The Arbitration Court to-day con
tinued the hearipg of the argument
- of counsel in respect to the Oourt's
jurisdiction bearing on certain mat
ters in dispute between the Com
missioner for Railways and the
railway employees' union.
The proceedings, which were of a
preliminary nature, were held at the
invitation of the court.
Mr. Pilkington, K.C., with Mr.
Dwyer, and Mr. Darbyshire, the
secretary of the applicant union,
appeared for the. union, and Mr. V.
F. Smith, K.C., with M r. Al-cock,
for the Commissioner of Railways.
One of the chief points at issue
was one dealing with the classifiesa
tion of service, Mr. Smith cont.ed
ing that the right to classify the
staff rested solely with - the Com
missioner, for Railways.
The Court, after listening to
lengthy argument, decided that it!
had jurisdiction to hear the case un
der the Arbitration Act, but, as the I
result of other points raised, it was
not yet decided upon what lines it
would hear the case. These, how
ever, would be indicated to the
parties concerned.
The President remarked that if
Mr. Smith was not satisfied with
the decision,-he trusted lie would
take steps to have it tested without
delay.
Mr. Smith, in opening argument,
submitted that the court had no
jurisdiction to deal with the union's
petitions, except perhaps in reepeot
to the fixing of the minimum wage.
The Railways Act provided that the
Conmmissioner for Railways mig-ht
make regulations and by-laws af- I
footing the duties of employees.
Those by-laws had been made and
gazetted and had thus become the
aw of thile land. The Commissioner
..had the sole power to organise and
classify his staff, and he contended
that the Court had no power to deal
with - those regulations, except
where it mmas shown that the regul-a
tgons were inconsistent with some
award of the court.
The President: Personally, I
want to see what the court
can do under the Arbitration AotI
oaipart from the Railway Act.
Mr. Smith submitted that the Ar
bitration Act did not give the court
power to deal with tihe question of
the classification and girading of the
staff., It could not dictate to the
Commissioner as to the manner in
which he should classify men. If
the court did hold that view, it
would be usurping the powers of a
man who was specially qualified to
make the classification.
The President: You contend that
the Commissioner, having had his
by-laws, is not restricted in his
powers except so far as they con
flict with an existing award, and
that being so, this court has no
jurisdiction.
Mr. Smith: That is so.
The President: Supposing the
Commissioner had not made- any
by-laws I
Mr. Smith: Then I would say that
the court has power to fix the, mini
mum wage only, but that it has no
right to exercise powers which
have been given to another person
by statute. The remedy. would I
be to compel the Commissioner to
frame by-laws.
Continuing, Mr. Smith contended
that the court had no power to
decide that the award should oper
ate retrospectively. Under the
classification the Commissioner re
ceived a vote from Parliament to
cover him over a certain period, and
if the award were made retrospec
tive, where would the money come
firom? The legislature, he $ubmit
ted, never intended that such an ex
traordinary power should be vested
in the court, and there was nothing
in the Arbitration Act that would
justify the court adopting such a
course.
In reply, Mr. Pilkington said that
it lhad been suggested that thle Court
had no power to deal with the
terms of employment which might
be imposed by regulation by the
Commissione. He contended that
the law was perfectly clear. The
court was not limited in powers by
those.regulations. The court's award
would necessarily override the regu
lations of the Commissioner. The
union was asking that the award
should be made to date as from July
1. He did not suggest the the courtO
had power to make an award dating
back any length of time, buSt it
should be made to operate from the
date when the dispute arose. Deal
ing with the question of classifica
tion or grading, he pointed out
that the union was asking the court
to decide what was th~eminimum
wage to be paid for every job. Men
who were doing somewhat similar
work had been grouped for the sake
of convenience.
The President: I think that all
this court has to do is to fix a mini
nmum rate. I don't think," however,
that it has any right to fix the
minimum for, .say, each particular
clerk.
After lengthy argument, a sugges
tion was thrown .out by the Presi
dent that some sort of test dealing
with the question of classification
should be arranged for the guidance
of the court.
Mr. Pilkington then proceeded to
deal with various other matters at
issue, the chief of which was the
question of the court's jurisdiction
in respect to preference to union
ists. He drew attention to the re
cent decision of the New Zealand
Full Court, in which it was held
that the Arbitration Court there
had power to direct, in making an
award, that preference should be
given to unionists. The New Zea
and Arbitration Act, he stated, was
passed on similar lines to the local
Act.
Mr. Smith contended that the
question of preference was hardly a
matter that came within the court's
jurisdiction, even assuming that the
New Zealand Act was the same as
the State Act.
The President: I believe that it
is within the jurisdiction of the
court.
After further argument, the Pre
sident said that the court had de
cided to approach the case unham
pered by the Railway Act. If Mr.
Smith's client believed that all the
matters dealt with by the bylaw
could not be dealt with by the court,
he should take steps to have the
matter brought before the Full
Couart. The main difficulty, to his
mind was the question whether the
court could fix not only the mini
mum but the wage for each paarticu
lar job. The court held that it had
power to deal with a petition under
the Arbitration Act. With regard
to classification he, personally, was
of the opinion that the court could
not fix a wage for every individual
worker. If, however, the court had
sufficient evidence to enable a test
to be made, that course would he
pursued. The court, however, would
take an early opportunity of indicat
ing to the parties the lines upon
which it considered it could make
an award.
The hearing of the application will
commence on Monday next.
$