40-HOUR WEEK.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 91, 17 April 1936, Page 15

40-HOUR WEEK.

INQUIRY BLOCKED. LOP-SIDED COMMITTEE. TRADE UNION ATTITUDE. (From Our Own Correspondent.) SYDNEY, April 8. Largely owing to the pressure put upon the Government by Sir E. Stewart, while he was still officially Secretary of Unemployment, the Federal authorities decided to hold an inquiry into the proposed scheme for a 40-hour week. Sir F. Stewart, who is a large employer of labour and sympathises strongly with the claims of the worker, toured Europe last year, and while at Geneva was deeply impressed by the case that the International Labour Office had made out for a shorter working week.

On his return to Australia he announced that in his opinion a 40-hour week would be practicable here, and that he proposed to work for the establishment of the system. There is 110 doubt that Sir. F. Stewart's decision on this, point and the enthusiasm with which he took up the cause of national insurance in the interests of the workers, and more especially of the unemployed, made his relations with member's of the Federal Cabinet difficult, and rendered his tenure of office precarious. His recent resignation was, therefore, not unexpected, but so much interest had his advocacy of a shorter working week created that the Government was practically compelled by the pressure of political opinion and public sentiment to arrange a conference between Ministers and representatives of employers' federations and industrial unions to consider the whole question.

This project was regarded by many people as a triumph for Sir F. Stewart, and it was generally expected that the workers would take up the matter enthusiastically, but the Labour organisations arc so profoundly dissatisfied with the constitution of the proposed committee that they refuse to have anything to do with it. First, the A.W.U. announced that it would leave the conference severely alone, and a little later tho Australian Council of Trades Unions, at a special meeting convened in Melbourne to discuss the matter, decided that it would boycott the inquiry altogether.

The reason for this reluctance on the part of workers to be concerned in this investigation in it« present form ha 3 been explained quite clearly by Mr. R. King, who is secretary of Sydney Laboui Council. He told a "Sun" interviewer this week that with the committee constituted as now intended "the caTds would be stacked against the unions by at least 18 votes to 4," and that under the circumstances the inqury could do no good. But he added: "If the Federal Government will create a committee upon which ehployers and employees have equal representation under an independent chairman, the unions will be quite willing to send accredited representatives."

It las been reported from Canberra that "in the view of the Government, neither employers nor employees will bo at a disadvantage through minority representation at the proposed conference," but it is surely obvious that if as the outcome of such an inquiry the investigating body carries a resolution or frames a report condemning the shorter working week by a large majority the future prospects of the movement in its favour will bo very gravely prejudiced.

Tlio unions naturally appreciate this point, and they have also taken strong exception to the proposal already made to hold the conference strictly "in camera" and to exclude the Press. It is thus easy to understand why they fail to see that the inquiry as now contemplated can be of real value. But their refusal has unfortunately given the opponents of a shorter working week the excueo that they desired to shelve the question altogether. A public man in the confidence of Ministers said this week that "if the unions do not want the inquiry there is no need for it," and it is now possible that the conference may lapse.