CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION ACT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVII, Issue 94, 20 April 1906, Page 2

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION ACT.

LABOUE CONFERENCE DEBATE.

SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS,

(By- Telegraphs-Ptesa Aasocimea.)

OH KIHX'CHTJEtCH, Thursday. The third day's sitting of the Trader, and Labour Conference was beld to-day. EKFOBCEMENT OF AWATTO A motion to the effect that stipendiary magistrates be given power to adjudicate in the cases uf enforcement of awards and industrial agreements, their decision to be final, was carried. On tbe suggestion of Mr. Hampton (Wellington) an addition, was made to enable experts to sit with the magistrate in cases of application by either party. CONCILIATION BOABDS. After discussion the conference rejected Mr. Barr's motion, That the Conciliation and Arbitration Act of 1900 be amended in the following direction: 'When parties to a dispute agree to accept the recommendation of the Board of Conciliation, such recommendation shall have the effect of an award of the Arbitration Court, and shall cover the whole industrial district in which the dispute is filed, subject to the provisions of section 59 of the principal Act, such provisions to apply to all persons in the particular industry concerned.'" Mr. Breen's motion, "That the Conciliation and Arbitration Act be amended to provide for two Arbitration Courts, one for the North Island, and one for the South Island," was lost. Mr. Breen moved, "That section 54 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act be

amended by adding after 'prescribed fee' 'the words Thirty days after the filing .of the Board's recommendation it shall j come into force, and shall operate and be enforceable in the same manner and jthe same respect as the award ot tbe I Court until such time as the Court shall have made the award in the case, proIvided either party appeals against the Board's recommendation.'" The object of the motion (he said) was to conapel j the recommendation of the Board to remain in operation until the Court load ,ah opportunity of discussing it. Tbe feeling in Dunedin was in the direction of increasing the powers of the Conciliation Boards. Mr. J. T. Paul seconded the motion, and said that the idea was to make the Boards into minor courts. In going back to conciliation, however, they must be very careful of one thing and that was the character of the Boards elected hy the workers. The motion was then put and carried. Mr. R. Breen moved, "That the Conciliation and Arbitration Act should be> amended so as to bring under its provisions all State employees throughout the colony." Speaking to the motion Sir Breen said he thought that perhaps the be3t way to proceed would be to advocate the repeal of the clause in the Act exempting the operation of awards from State Departments. Mr Rosser asked if theTe had been anj request from Government servants that they should be brought under Arbitration Court awards. Mr. Breen repbed in the negative and said that the request came from, the PainteTs' Union in Dunedin. ' Mr. D. H. Hampton seconded the motion.

I ' Mr. Thome moved as .an amendment, "That the words 'throughout the colony' be struck out and the following in- j serted: 'whose wages and conditions are not provided for by Act of Parliament.' " He thought Mr. Rosser's question was a very pertinent one, and that every delegate would recognise that it. was an unwise policy indeed to take up an attitude and to persist in it to tbe extent of alienating the sympathies of thousands of organised workers in the colony. Mr. Rosser seconded the amendment, which was lost by 10 votes to six. The motion was then carried. PERSONNEL OF THE COURT. The conference then reached a motion sent forward by the Wellington Trades and Labour Council relating to the personnel of the Arbitration Court itself. Mr. D. McLaren (Wellington) moved, "That this conference has no confidence in the Arbitration Court as at present constituted" He said he was not present at the meeting of the Wellington , Trades and Labour Council when this remit was drafted, and he did not altogether like the wording of it, but he. thought it 'was the conviction of a very large number of trades unionists that thf Court, as it was now constituted, was not satisfactory. He submitted that the Arbitration Court was not called upon to settle the economic problems of the State, that was the function of Parliament. Mr D. H. Hampton (Wellington) seconded the motion, for the reason that he was disappointed with the decisions given iby the Court during the past 12 months. He knew of cases where employers and the men were practically agreed, and the judge went back on the whole matter. Further, there were eases brought for the enforcement of the Act, and the president had gone hack on tbe precedent of justice and equity. Right throughout he had ignored the evidence and given a decision according to his own siweet will. Messrs Westbrook (Hawke's Bay) and Cannington (Nelson) supported the motion.

The Chairman understood the motion as one of no-confidence in the personnel of the Court, and not the Court itself, as appeared to be indicated in the remarks of previous speakers. He said he had hoped the debate would proceed on such lines, and he had been disappointed. There was a tremendous amount of power left in the hands of the president, which he was at liberty to exercise as he pleased With some former presidents the administration of the Act had been very satisfactory. Under them thie Act had | been fairly and. wisely administered, ! but on several occasions since they found that the judge had given erratic .decisions and awards. There -was no I denying the fact that the majority of the awards given by the president -were jvery unsatisfactory, and elements of an 'exceedingly disquieting character. As to the employers' representative, he was saturated with the interests* .of those he represented. On the other hand, they had a representative of la*, hour who was one of the finest fellows living outside the Court, but inside he was very weak. At present labour was overweighted in the Court, Mr R. Breen (Otago) said there was no disguising the fact that t)ie motion was practically an attack on the president of the Arbitration Court, Ho did not think-they had airy reason to complain of the employers' representative, as : they; thorbugKly understood that he was then to look after the interests of the tsatployma. Ho- far «

their own representative was conoernnd be had Wn selected two years ago byT tbnt conference and recommended to?' the anions; for selection. ■, Mr, Slater , iwas the,same today as he was then,, and therefore- the conference should have no reason to complain of him. H» r thought the proper course would be (for tbe conference to petition for the removal of tho president of the Court.. He had no doubt aibqat the abffity or the honesty of Mr Jnstiae Chapman, , but it -was- questionable -whether he j was fitted for the presidency of the Arbitration Court. He might be more i successful in a. higher sphere. Mr I Breen added that,he intended to oppose the. motion. ..',, I Mr J. T.. Paul (Otago) said "that -the ! weakness of the constitution of the Court was the personality .and the I power of the president. He, however, 'intended to say at once that he was not prepared to go back on ihe constitution of the Court. It seemed to him that although they had had several 'reftmffs the time had not yet aTI rived when they should say to the Court "get out." He for one was pre- j i pared to give the Arbitration Court a I further trial. At ihe same time it seemed that if the present president I was allowed to. remain where he was, I the end of arbitration in New Zealand was not far off.

Mr A. Rosser (Anckland) opposed tho motion, because he xcus satisfied that whatever their feelings on the Arbitration Act, nothing had been put before the conference that afternoon worthy of taking its place. Ttuy must weigh the benefits against tbe drawbacks to arbitration, and he felt with Mr Breen and Mr Paul that they ought to give it a further trial. (Hear, hear.)

The motion was then pat to the conference and was lost, those voting for it being: Messrs Moore, McLaren, Hampton, Love, and More, and those against, Messrs Barr, Gehrs, Carrington, P&tz, Breen, Paul, Wallace, Rosser, Collins Wesbbrook, and Thome.