TRADES AND LABOUR CONFERENCE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIII, Issue 77, 2 April 1902, Page 5

TRADES AND LABOUR CONFERENCE.

The annual meeting of delegates of the New Zealand Trades and 'Labour Councils was continued yesterday ■afternoon, Mr H. L. Horning in ■the chair.- ' --,'■• ■.- ''. CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION. Conciliation and Arbitration Act:—Mr Fawciis (Auckland) moved: "That this Conference '.respectfully urges the Government to" amend clause'l6 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1901, so that it shall be compulsory for Government inspectors on a majority vote of any union concerned to'state a case, for breach of a Ward before the Court of Arbitration, and apply for the "enforcement of the award." Mr Collins seconded, arid the motion was carried. Mr Ferguson (Otago) moved as a further amendment: "That the Conciliation and Arbitration Act be amended to give, power to either party to take proceedings before any Stipendiary Magistrate for- the due , enforcement of an award, the said magistrate to have full power to enforce all penalties for breach of an award, and that no- solicitor be allowed to appear before the magistrate in any case.where learned counsel has not appeared before the Court •of Arbitration or Board of Conciliation." The amendment he considered- a very necessary step, as employers, when told that they were committing a breach of an award, Simply ignored the1 fact. Mr Russell (Westland) seconded the amendment, which he considered a desirable resolution. Mr Naughton (Wellington) thought it a pity that the subject should be brought before the Conference 3 rear after year. The more it was opened up,the more indefinite it became and greater difficulties presented themselves. If they applied for such cases to be referred to a Stipendiary Magistrate, he thought they should reserve the right of appeal to the Arbitration Court. Mr Fawcus (Auckland) said that though there were good points in the motion, he foresaw considerable difficulty, as the Government would not be likely to vest arbitrary power in a magistrate. He - considered the power to take cases before the Chairman of the Conciliation Board was quite sufficient. The resolution was adopted by ten votes to three. Mr Ferguson (Otago) moved as a further amendment: " That it be made legal for all union business to be suspended if considered advisable from the time of filing an industrial dispute until the award is made-" The unions often lost'members because the Court was so long in going from place to place, and the other side frequently brought up in Court as an argument against unionism the fact of the decline in the union's membership. Some action should be taken by the Conference to obviate the possibility of such OQti#p , rences as these. Mr Stewart (Otago) seconded. 'Mr Betts (Westland) did hot' see what advantage would be derived if legal sanction were attached to Mr Ferguson's motion. Mr Naughton (Wellington) was of opinion that, if unionists were not enthusiastic enough to stick together and fight for their rights, they did riot deserve to receive any consideration. Mr Collins (Wellington) thought that the motion would prevent the weeding-out process practised by employers, and would check unionists from dropping out during the hearing of a ease. .Mr Hood _£Otago) said he knew of a case in point where the membership of a union was greatly reduced by the tactics of the employers, and if this went on the Court could not grant preference to unionists, and without preference unions could riot exist. Mr Fawcus regretted that any such resolution had been introduced—it was a sign of weakness. He considered that some pressure should be brought upon the Government to ! compel a speedy delivery of the award by- the Arbitration Court. The amendment was lost by seven votes to four. Mr Stewart (Otago) moved: "That employers of labour shall keep ' a wa^es-book containing a correct record of the wages paid to each employee, and the hours worked each day for which such wages have been paid, such book to be open for inspection by the inspector appointed under the Act." .. Mr Betts (Westland) seconded the amendment pro forma. ,He did not think they should interfere too much with the work of the employers, and if they .got Parliament to fc enact everything, for them, the result would be that unionists would lose their fighting povyer. Mr Ij.ushrid.ge (Canterbury) supported the motion. Some check, he thought, should be kept on the employers. Mr Naughton (Wellington) opposed the resolution on the ground that he did not consider they should compel an employer to produce proof of his own guilt. Employees who had not backbone enough to renoH breaches of award did not deserve to enjoy the benefits of the union., Mr Ferguson (Otago) pointed out that under the present system it was practically impossible to ascertain whether there was a breach of an award. Mr Collins (Wellington) said that the proposal was enforced by the Factories Act, and it was reasonable so far as overtime was concerned. It was only reasonable that it should be extended to apply to breaches of awards; .Mr A. Rosser (Auckland), who apologised for his late arrival, having only just returned from Wellington, supported the motion. In his opinion they should do their utmost for the benefit of those weak unions which needed assistance, although there were, as Mr Betts said, some unions which no longer needed such help.. , '."'•:'•■ After further discussion the motion was carried by eleven votes to three. Mr Betts (Westland) moved: "That the Government be requested to repeal section 21 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1901." He thought they would all agree with him in giving the Boards the former

[ power, as this section had the'tendency to do away with the Conciliation Board and to induce parties to a dispute to refer their dispute to a Court capable of enforcing its award. The Boards had often saved great expense, and had been the m3ans Of employers and employees coming to an amicable settlement. Mr Stewart (Otago) seconded the resolution pro forma. Mr Naughton (Wellington) thought that the unions had done, their best when they had expressed the opinion that they considered conciliation.was preferable to arbitration. Unionists favoured conciliation, but even ,if that were taken away, it did not matter—they were.not afraid to proceedto arbitration. The employers had given up conciliation and must now submit to arbitration., Mr Collins (Wellington) said that as a member of the Wellington Conciliation I^oard he would like to give an emphatic denial to. the statements made against that Board by other Boards in the colony and by so-call-ed Liberals in the House of Representatives. The. Board had never extended its sittings, but had advised the parties in a dispute to sift their case and endeavour to come to an agreement, and if that proved unsuccessful then to refer the matter to., conciliation. The real objection of capitalists to the Wellington Board lay in the fact that the Board had given to labour the best conditions in the. colony. Mr Rosser (Auckland) said that the workers had not asked for the change, but now it had been made they would abide by it. He was not in favour of the section doing away with conciliation, which, he said, though it was more costly, had been instrumental in deciding • two local cases. The miners' case took six weeks before the Board and eleven days before the Court, the. carpenters' case a week before the Board and three days before the Court. At present he had three cases going to the Court, and he was satisfied that it should be so, as owing to the constitution of the Board, he knew there could be no settlement. The motion, on being submitted, was lost, only two voting for and eleven against. Mr Rusbridge (Otago) moved: "That the Government be requested to amend section "99 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1900 by deleting all the words from. ' unless' on the fifth line and insert.'a majority of all the valid votes, cast are in favour of it.'" He said that at present the wishes of the union were sometimes frustrated by the failure of some members to vote. A majority ruled at a, special meeting, and it was only fair that a majority of votes cast in the ballot should rule. The motion was warmly supported. It was urged that owing to the members of many unions being scattered all over this colony and other countries, it was practically impossible to get the votes of the members together in time to vote^n all questions, hence it was desirable that a majority vote should be taken by those present.at.the meeting. The motion was adopted, there bein°only one dissentient, k * The Conference then adjourned until half-past nine o'clock this morning. . • ■..-.