VICTORIAN LABOUR COMMISSION.

Press, Volume LIX, Issue 11243, 8 April 1902, Page 3

VICTORIAN LABOUR COMMISSION.

SITTINGS IN OHRI3TOHURCH.

The Victorian Labour Commission, -which is visitiii"; New Zealand for the purpose of taking evidence relating to the labour legislation of New Zealand, held its first sitting iv ChristehiLnii yrstirdiy. Ths> mtm-bc-rs of . th? Commission pissemwere:—The Hon. A. R. Outtrim M.L.A. (Chairman), the Hon. R. Reid, M.L.C., the Hon. J. Steinberg. M.L.C., the Hon. (j. Godfrey, M.L.C-. Messrs F. H. Bromley, M.L.A", G. H. Bennett, M.L.A.;, and H. S. W. Lawson. M.L.A. Mr George Bowron, of Bovvron Bros., the first witness examined, stated that, his firm worked under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. There could be no two opinions as to the good principle of the Act, but there might come a tune when even conciliation and arbitration might fail. Dealing with the Act, Mr Bowron said that the Unions had made a number of ridiculous demands in the past; which demands had bsen practically allowed by the Conciliation Board, and afterwards disallowed by the Arbitration Court. The Conciliation Board had done nothing to justify its name, and had failed in conciliating. "The local Board gave the workers all they asked for, and sometimes more than they asked for. If the recommendations of the Conciliation Boards had been adopted, it would have meant the crippling of trade in the colony, and the wiping out of some of the firms. Mr Bowron thought that a Stipendiary Magistrate should be appointed Chairman of the Board, and that the Employers' and Workers" Unions should each appoint one member, and that in case of a dispute each side, in addition, should engage one expert, a man who was engaged in the particular industry under review. The recommendations of the Board should remain open for acceptance for three months, during which time no party should have the right toJ appeal to the Court. The Arbitration Court would be materially improved by tj» addition of two expert assessors. The awqpd of the Arbitration Court should be made compulsory for six months only, where-upon-either party could give notice to the other that it did"not intend to abide by the award. A Union should not be allowed to file a citation until 50 per cent, of the members affected had agreed to the proceeding. In framing its awards the Court of Arbitration should be directad to take account of the conditions of labour prevailing in America and the other colonies where the dispute affects an export trade. Due regard should be had to see that one industry was not affected by more than one award. As a result of the Act, confidence between employer and employee had been lost. He ■would like to see the Act so amended as to make it of a more voluntary character. During the last two years he thought that every case heard by the Conciliation Board had "gone to the Court, where the Board's recommend it'ona had bten largely amended. Mr I.J. H. BLickwell, managing director of the Kaia.poi Woollen Factory, stated that the company'employed over 1100 hands, but they were not working under an award at present, as they had discovered that the award under which they had previously been working was not in operation. In the •woollen department the effect of the Act had not been satisfactory, as it had caused friction between the workers and employers and between the workers themselves. He approved of the principle of the Act affecting Conciliation Boards, but he thought it was being used in a wrong direction. Experts should be appointed -to hear the disputes. He would not do away with the Arbitration Act, but would have it amended. He would not be inclined to give toe Conciliation Boards power to enforce their recommendations.

Mr F. Waymouth, managing director of the Canterbury Frozen Meat Company, stated that at the present time the company employed about 700 men. He found that his business could be affected by 20 different awards. The demands of the men right through would mean an increase of 75 per. cent., in wages. In the main he was in favour of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, but it wanted some of the corners knocked off. The Board wanted abolishing or reconstructi6n. The members of the "Board should be experts, and the chairman should be beyond political 'influence, f" In X&nterbury ,the Conciliation, ~ Board in; variably gave its decisions iii favour of the men, and the Court invariably reversed'these decisions. .

The Chairman remarked that the Dunedin Board appeared to be an exemplary Board. Mr Reid said that the evidence they had just 'heard concerning the Conciliation Board was diametrically opposed to what they had heard in Dunedin. . Continuing, Mr Waymouth stated that at least 50 per cent, of the workers affected should agree to a dispute being brought before the Board.

Mr J. A. Frostick, secretary of the Boot 'Manufacturers' Association, stated that fche effect of the Act upon employers was that it had increased importation. The colonial manufacture of boots was not increasing in proportion to the population. The principle of the Act was good, and protected the well-intentioned employer. In his opinion Conciliation Boards, never did exist. They, eat as an amateur court, and never made any attempt at conciliation. If the parties could be brought together under a magistrate, that would be a. Conciliation Board. The Board should be called upon to- give its reasons for its recommendations. He thougiht the .Arbitration Court had too much power, and that its power should be confined to the fixing of hours of labour and of a minimum wage. Mr A. H. Turnbull, Chairman of the Christchurch Conciliation Board, in the course of a statement' read to the Commission, stated that.the hostile criticisms passed upon the Conciliation Act came either from persons who were ignorant of the true state of affairs or who were unwilling to allow the workers any of the privileges they were entitled to under the Act. The Act was\well conceived, and of late there had been a more favourable opinion as to the utility of Boards of Conciliation. The soundness of the-Board's recommendations had been unquestionably borne out by the decisions of the Arbitration Court. In reply to questions, Mr Turnbull stated that the Board was necessary, but at present its powers were niL In minor disputes the Boards should have the right of making the recommendations binding for a year. The Chairman: Does the Board act as a Conciliation .Board? Mr Turnbull: It depends a very great deal upon the employers, not so much upon ! the employees. We have always found that employees have exhausted measures before they come to the Board.

In rep'lv to further questions, Mr Turnbull stated it would be a mistake to do away with the Conciliation Boards. In mahv cases the Conciliation Board had settled" the whole matter in dispute, , except the rate of wages and then the whole matter went before the Court de novo. The Act had tended to the benefit of employers &d employees throughout the colony, and W had effectually prevented strikes." The Act had not had the effect of reducine production. In about 10 cases out of 12 the of the Board had been adopted &v the Court. Certain industries however, had been exempted by the Court. He did not think it would be an advantage for a dispute to be heard by men engaged in the -particular trade affected for such men would be biassed in

favour of thsir own parries. A Board could best be formed by independent men, not affected by ihe particular trade in dispute, for expert evidence was always forthcoming. Mr Chartes Taylor, representing ;,he Canterbury Trades and Labour Council, stated that the employees had been affected by theAct, and in "most- cases wages had ine> eased. There was a better feelin<* between employers and employees now than before tho Act was passed. It would be better if the Conciliation Board had power to make awards, for a case after b*>in>j before the Board was hung up for a considerable time before the Court could deal with it. He suggested that the Board's recommendations should be enforced until the Court had mode its award. He was satisfied with the constitution of the Conciliation Board, and workers generally were content with tbe working of the Act. A section of the employers had taken grave exception to the Board. The employers themselves had failed in their duty of conciliating, for they had frequently neglected to meet the other side in conference. Mr W. Newton stated that in the upholstery trade the average wage in Canterbury was from 9s to 10s. In a number of trades he believed the minimum wage became an average wage, but this was not so in his trade. The Board had done good work, and the large majority of its recommendations had been followed by the Court. Mr S. Billdiff, plumber, who also represented the Trades and Labour Council, agreed in the main with, the opinion of the two previous witnesses. The Act had improved the condition of the workers in the plumbing trade. There were no old workers in tihe trade, for the work shortened the men's lives. His trade was in a better position now than it was before the Act, and it would be a misfortune if the Act were abcT.ished. The Commission will sit again at lQj oiclock this morning. m