THE NEW ARBITRATION BILL.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 12904, 9 September 1907, Page 9

THE NEW ARBITRATION BILL.

TRADES AND LABOUR COUNCIL'S JW MANIFESTO.

A special meeting of the Canterbury Trades and Labour Council waa held on Saturday evening, Mr J. Thorn presiding, to receive a report from the executive regarding the Conciliation and Arbitration Act Amendment Bill. The report was adopted, and it was decided that copies should be sent to all members of the House of Representatives.

Mr Thorn, was appointed to give evidence regarding the Bill before the Labour Bills Committee of the House. The principal clauses of the report are us follows: — INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS.

"Wβ disapprove entirely of the abolition of Conciliation Boards and the institution of Industrial Councils. In our opinion the institution, of Industrial Councils as provided in the Bill must operate on many unions co as to cause much inconvenience and embarrassment, and some unions, the smaller ones, it must ( affect very harshly. In addition to this objection, there is great danger, especially in the case of the unions' representatives who defend their unions' demands ac they ought to be defended, that the risk of the employers' prejudice will be extended. With regard to the first point of objection, it ie quite conceivable that in the rase of small unions, and especially new unions, there would be great difficulty in securing three men with capacities great enough and with knowledge of procedure, which is indispensable, to justify the hope that the case would be efficiently conducted. This must result In unsatisfactory awards and consequent irritation and bad feeling. The second objection may not be bo serious in great cities, whore the opportunities of employment are romparatively numerous, but in New Zealand, where the industries are comparatively small «nd tho ohanees of employment consequently restricted, it assumes a very different aspect, and .inevitably commends itself to us ac a cogent reason why the proposal to oetablish Industrial Councils ehould be opposed. Further than this, we see no reason why our agitation for giving the Conciliation Boards ext«ndpd powere, and thereby restoring to them their dicnitv and usefulness should be disregarded. If expert knowledge In required the Boards are now empowered to call it to their aseistanco, under Clauses.sl and 52 of tho principal Act. Thje ought to meet tho position that the Boards haro sometime to deal with matters Wy know nothing about." *'iA if «t » logical to propose the abolition of the Boards because they sometimes hare to deal with matters "they know nothing about," does not the same logic constitute the wvereat of possible indiotmente of the present Arbitration Court system P This is most foolish, but it happens to be the position in whiOh tho Government has placed itself. Our opinion is that what w wanted to secure that a fair award &hall t» given is not the appointment of experts to an Industrial Council, but the appointment to the Conciliation Ooards of men who ar© capable of weighing the eyidenco given by experts from the tvit-neae-box. Confer upon our present Boards the came powers as are rested in the Industrial Councils under the Bill: increase the number of each Bide c representatives from two to three: make it necessary for two from each side to form a quorum, and then there will hare been introduced a better system of conciliation and arbitration. With regard to the right of appeal, we agree to it if it in applied to the awards given by ihe Conciliation Boards. If not, then the position 13 ludicrous. To establish a Council of experts, to giro it nowtjr to mate an award, to give parties n -lght of appeal to the Arbitration Court against such award end to make tho decision or the Arbitration Court, the non-expert body, final, is, to put it mildly, ndicu lous in the extreme However, we agr&" to giving parties a right t<. appeal aeainet the decisions of the Conciliation Boards-on lines laid down in the Bill *a applying to Industrial Councils. PAYMENT OP* FINES FROM WAGES.

Thla Jβ certainly one of tbe most reactionary clauses in the Bill. 10 give an employer auoh power over nis worker ac to deduct fines from bis wages is to go right back to the days of feudalism and make the worker a serf to hw maeter. And, further than that, it is a direct contradiction ot the principles of the Truok Act, 1891. and tie Wages' Protection Act, and ie contrary to the spirit of all our labour legislation. We call upon all unionists to make a uniteu protest against this obnoxious principle. CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNIONS.

The proposal to secure contributions to nniona from non-members is a politician's way of circumventing what seems to him <a difficult question, ana it chows a complete disregard of the great principle which the trades unions hold dear. We have been to secure the recognition of the principle that the man who bears the brunt in the fight for better conditions is entitled to preference of employment over tbe man who risks nothing, but takes all that he can get. In the struggle for better conditions we have been animated not merely by desire tor material gain, but by feelings of fraternity. There is the spirit of unionism. We have demanded that mat epirit ehe»n be recognised', and tho reply is that there is no spirit of unionism, b\st that the movement is actuated by th:mercenary motive of the piling up of money. -Let it be said plainly and with no uncertainty that we are no. in the business to accumulate funds tor the funde' sake, but to propagate our ideas and to make unionists. If we cannot make men unionists we do not want their money. If we can make unionists we want them and , not their money. With much money and fewunionists we can do little; with many unionists and little money we can do much. The proposal of the Government is iniquitous, because it compels ron-unioniste to contribute to a oausc in which they do not believe, and compels unionists to accept funds from meu who feel no sympathy with the union ideal Wo have fought our fight without financial assistance from unsympathisore in the we oaa do it in the future.

There is another reaeon why we should oppose this clause. This is not a sentimental reason. It is that this clause, even if we were out after the money, would assist the employers more than it would us. Comparatively I speaking, the employers are unorganised They are not assisted in their movement for organisation by any altruistic feelings, consequently organiea tion is difficult. So, therefore, any provision that would round up the emplojer who believes in his individual iem and compel him to contribute to an employers' association fund, would be, and, as a matter of fact, is, welcomed by the employers who understand the strength of combination. -Thus tho effect of the clause would be to strengthen tho employe/s' associations, so that progress as we conceive it would be met and impeded by an organised employer class. For these reoaona we oppose the clause, and stand "by our old-time demand, "unconditional statutory preference to unionist*."

ISSUE OF PERMITS

Wβ have no hesitation in calling upon unionists to demand the complete dotation of the clause providing for the iasae of perxnite by inspectors oi awards. It ie difficult enough as it is

to maintain tlte minimum wage pre--Bcnl ?s? n . m our »"arde. Undoubtedly our difficulties will be enormously increased if thia clause ie allowed to paw. we nave no confidence in the proposa* to place so important a matter in the hands of an inspector, who, after all, 13 subject to the whim and caprice 01 his departmental head.

LIABILITY OF MEMBERS. Clause 29 makes individual members it the IW 111 ? 11 * of a fine whioj A "awn or Association doe* not pay within one month after an order io tflat effect is filed. The individual liability is limited, however, co aa not to exceed £10. We object to tfiie clause, on the ground: tnat in the case of workers' unions it is oertain that the total amount of the fino wil] be paid, whereas in the case of employers' associations it is not so oertain. An employers' association may consist o« two persons. If an association of this membership was fined £100, and refused to pay, all that the State could possibly get .would be £'20. This is grossly unfair to the workers' unions, ajui consequently we strongly disapprove of it. OFFICERS OF UNIONS.

"The provision that officers of Industrial Unions must bo eugaiyd in the industry to which Unions are related is. perhaps, the most despotic and sinister clause in the Bill, and it is only another of thoe« meddlesome interferences in the interna] management of tho Unions. It comes ill from a Minuter who gained publicity and prominence by Trado Union agitation, that he should lend himself to the action of restricting the work of Trade Union agitators by p«nal provisions. What right haa he or anybody else to say whom a Union shall employ? And what harm ia there in tho Union employing a man outside the trado relating to the Union? The Minister need not be told, for he knows it very well, that this provision must destroy the professed object of tho Act. namely, the formation of industrial Unions. Our experience is that it is absolutely essential in the case of new Unions, and in many old ones, that officers should bo secured outside the trade. There are ecores of Unions in the colony which would never have been formed, let alone sustained in their activities, had it not been for the assistance given by old and experienced Unionist*. In many cases aid Unions, and fairly strong once, aro driven by reason of the discriminating propensities of employers to the necessity of going outside the trado for officers. Wβ see no reason whatever why a Union should be prevented from engaging the permanent services of any man if he proves himself to tho satisfaction of the Union to 1» competent in the diwiharge of his diutke. It is not enough that the Minister should rely for justification on the protests of tho employing class against 'paid agitators.' The employers have their paid agitatora, and they pay them biR salaries. The workers' agitators are, for the most part, not paid at all, and even when they are, we know that they are not paid in proportion to the work they do. In the interest! of trades unionism we desire to place on record our etrongest disapproval of the clause, and we trust that every unionist in the province will aseiit us in fighting for its deletion." The report disapproves of the proposal that no apprentice ahall be ovxw the ago of years, and of the provision preventing unions from being registered under tho Trade Union Act, 1878. The clause dealing with the recovery of wages paid less than tho fninimum rates is stated m the report to be a most unfair clause, and woukl operate only to the advantage of tho employer. Approval is expressed or the proposal to extend industrial agree, ments to the whole of the employers when it was shown that the employers bound by the agreement employed a majority of t&e workers in the mduGtry, and with the clause making agreements enforceable as awards of the Court, also tho clause empowering magistrates to enforce awards. "Practically sneaking," etates the report in conclusion., "the Bill is a concoction of pernicious principles, eeom- ; ngly dictated to the Government >by the Associations of men whose activities in the past do not sutrgest to us that they have any sympathies for the cause of Trades Unionism pr dosiro for ite progress."