PILFERING CARGO.

Auckland Star, Volume XLI, Issue 171, 21 July 1910, Page 6

PILFERING CARGO.

AN ARBITRATION AWARD. ATTACKED IN PARLIAMENT. (By Telegraph.—Pailiamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, Wednesday. The memorandum added by Mr Justice _im to the Auckland Waterside Workers' Union award relating to the pilfering oi cargo was .brought up in the House of llepi-esentativcs this afternoon. Mr Poole, in stating the facts of the case, asked could the .Minister suggest any steps whereby the stigma contained in "the memorandum might be removed _rom a large body of workers? The Hon." J. A. Millar replied that his attention had been called to this matter in October of last year by a question asked by Zvlr McLaren, and, as was indicated in the reply to that question, ho regretted he could see no means of removing the stigma beyond that suggested by the Court of Arbitration itself.

Air Poole said petitions signed by 4542 waterside workers in all parts of the Dominion were to be presented to the House protesting against the memorandum attached to the award. He realised that it was necessary to protect the importers, and every legal effort should be made to deal with the pilfering trouble, but in this case the judge's 'tag' had been added without justification. It was well-known that in the bandling' of cargo a lot of pilfering took place before ever a ship left the Home ports, and cargo was also frequently broached at Australian ports en route to New Zealand. If the Arbitration Court was to be allowed to turn out awards with such 'tags' as that award carried there would be an outburst of indignation from every part of the Dominion. The Minister's reply to his question was not at all satisfactory, and it did not take them anywhere. In the interests of peace it was desirable that such statements should not be allowed to icbta.i_. If a waterside worker was guilty cf pilfering he should be sent up as 'high as Hamen,' but -in this case a large "body of workers had 'been held up to scorn, and there was a feeling that the stigmatisation should be removed.

Mr T. E. Taylor, in endorsing the remarks made by the member for Auckland West, said he agreed that criticism of the judiciary should be avoided. In this case, however, the memorandum attached to the Waterside Workers' Union award was one of the most wanton insults ever offered a body of workmen in this country. The Arbitration Court at Auckland had gone right outside its functions in making such ', statement. He could remember no more extraordinary act on the part of the Arbitration Court. In Christchureh only last week the judge had shown a sense of irritation which indicated that he was evidently over-work-ed. One easy means of remedying affairs of that kind would be for the judge to Tesign. In Christchureh they had actually had a pre-judgment of a case actuated -by newspaper reports. Surely that indicated how wrong things were.

Mr D. McLaren also regarded the Minister's reply to Mr Poole's questions as most unsatisfactory. He would not attempt to criticise the judiciary, but he objected most strongly to the memorandum, which, he said, was not only a gross insult to the men, but an attack on the whole system eft conciliation and arbitration. How couid they expect confidence to be retained in a court that went ont of its way to insult the parties before it? Air McLaren added that he thought the memorandum a gross reflection on a large body of workers, and p. stigma, which should be removed.

Air Hogan also referred to the matter. He thought the memorandum no part of the award and an unnecessary reflection on the waterside workers.