ARBITRATION.

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 241, 11 October 1934, Page 15

ARBITRATION.

WORKERS AND COURT. AMENDED LAW DENOUNCED. PROTECTION REMOVED. (By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, this day. Persistent picas from members of the Opposition for the restoration of the workers' rights to take industrial disputes tG the Arbitration Court fell on deaf ears in the House of Representatives last night, and an amendment to reduce the Labour Department vote by £5 as "a protest against the entire exclusion of wage earners from the protective provisions of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act" was defeated. The Minister temporarily in charge of the Labour Department, Mr. Bitcliener, resolutely avoided giving an expression of opinion on the Government policy in this direction, contenting himself with a list of the recent activities of tlio Court. In asking what was in the Minister's mind concerning the restoration of the Arbitration Court to the workers, Mr. W. E. Parry (Labou'r, Auckland Central) gaid that tlio trades unions were combining to make national demands concerning wages. That emphasised the very restless state of the workers on account of the position of the Arbitration Court. He thought it was the duty of the Minister and the Government to make some definite statement of what was likely to be done, or whether the Government proposed to do anything at all. Mr. E. McKeen (Labour, Wellington South) urged an increase in the number of labour inspectors, and said there was a tremendous amount of "sweating" going on. Women were getting just half the wages they were getting four years ago, and men in shops were getting about two-thirds.

" Court Only a Sham." "There is no doubt that under the present administration the Arbitration Court is only a sliam, to enable the Government to pretend it is giving protection to the workers," said Mr. J. A. Lee (Labour, Grey Lynn). "We pay for the upkeep of the Court, but we take the judge and send him round tlie country to find a policy for the Government.'-' He added that the present acting-Minister was the man who was least interested in the Department. It was apparently the policy of the Government to put a Minister in charge who had shown at all times the least interest in labour matters. Mr. R. A. Wright (Independent, Wellington Suburbs) asked what the Arbitration Court was doing. It seemed as if it had very little to do to-day in arbitration matters, for the amendment to the Act' had practically emasculated the Arbitration Court, and the question was whether the country was getting value for the money spent on it. Mr. K. Semple (Labour, Wellington East) drew attention to the conditions existing in the Wellington petrol reselling business, in which he said employees were compelled to pay in fl a week for shares in the business. If they objected they lost their positions, and if they left they lost their money. He hoped, as soon as he had all the evidence, to give the name of the firm and the nature of its operations. " Waste of Money." Mr. C. H. Chapman (Labour, Wellington North) submitted that as the work the Arbitration Court was supposed to be doing was not done the staff ahouid be dismissed, for he contended that the House should be indignant at keeping the Court merely as a sham. He described the vote of £3000 for salaries of assessors and their travelling expenses as a waste of public money. In -moving a reduction of £5 in the vote, as a protest, Mr. Langstone complained of a grant of £8500 being made from the unemployment fund to the Labour Department for services rendered, describing it as "scrounging" on the unemployed. Mr. W. J. Jordan (Labour, Manukau) complained of the action cf the Government in handing over tV portfolio of Labour to Sir. Bitchencr, saying that Minister had enough to f'o in-handling Public Works, and lie did not know if Mr. Bitchcner could even do that. When any question of this nature was raised a sterotyped reply, which showed no signs of intelligent consideration, was received. Ho asked the Minister to consider if the] officer in charge of the Department, who was also Commissioner cf Unemployment, was good for anything. Mr. Jordan said he could not find satisfaction with this officer anywhere, and he certainly was not satisfactory as Commissioner of Unemployment. Mr. P. C. Webb (Labour, Buller) also stressed tlio necessity for a restoration of the' Arbitration Court to full power, and urged expedition in dealing with compensation cases. Acting-Minister's Reply. Replying, Mr. Bitcher.er said he was merely acting-Minister of Labour. It had been hoped all along that the Minister, Mr. Hamilton, would have resumed his duties and been able to pilot his own estimates through the House. Mr. Parry; They should have put another man in, and not had this humbug. | Mr. Bitchencr said Mr. Hamilton had so far recovered that it was hoped he I would soon be back in his place. I Mr. Parry: But he won't be. Mr. Bitchencr said he had tried to do [what little he could until the return of the Minister. The Arbitration Court was 'at present in Duncdin, and would sit there on Friday, and at Tavercargill next week. It was hoped Ilia*- Mr. Justice | Frazer would be able to resume his duties at an early date. Two of the judges had been chairmen of very important commissions, and if; had not been possible for them to take up the work of the Court. During last year the Court heard 58 industrial cases ana 51 compensation cases. Therefore, it was not exactly idle. He was unable to say how many cases the Court was expected to handle in the course of a year. Mr. Parry: We don't expect you to be able to. Mr. Bitcliener said tiiat during the year five additional inspectors were appointed, and two additional women inspectors as well.