THE ARBITRATION ACT.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 12934, 14 October 1907, Page 7

THE ARBITRATION ACT.

AMENDMENT BILL CRITICISED

ALLEGED INTIMIDATION" BY EM-

PLOVERS

Speaking in the Square yesterday afternoon, Air J. Thorn criticised at considerable length the provisions of the Conciliation nnd Arbitration Act Amendment Bill. He dealt principally with file proposal to set up industrial councils and objected to that proposal on the ground that the employees who are to bo on these councils would be intimidated by the employers who are also to be members. Ho further contended that each succeeding amondiment of the original Act had been in the direction of restricting the liberties of tho workers and tor debasing their status.

Tho intimidation practices of cmployere, ho said, went on just as much to-day a» ever tliey did. It' tho amending Bill became law, tho unions would haro to send thrco men to defend the demand of the union. They would: have to sit with their three employers—and if the. union representatives defended tho union's demands ac they ought to bo defended, they could bet their bottom dollar that after tho eitting of the council the employers would use their influence to the detriment of, the interests of those men. In support of his allegations regarding intimidation by employers he read, tho following letters from memfers of the Farm Labourers'* Union:— "Dear Sir', —Have been given the bullet for agitating here. Some prominent cockatoos have just about gone off pop about that crowd of Socialist loafers. 1 em, yours truly, —: —. Secretary of the Cuet branch." Tho speaker eaid that the writer was one of the em*Ttest young men in the Cost district and. absolutely one of the best farm labourers in tho district. He got eacked because lie had taken a prominent part in the union. Another one read: "I can eeo that uo are going to get buffeted about." (This, explained the speaker, was from'Tβi Tapu). "I am among the breakers now. I have been told to take a month's notice, for being so prominent, after ton yeare" service, and by a working manager at that. But it won't quench my fire by doing bo/ (Hear, hear.) That letter was writtho speaker eaid, by a mail who was head shepherd and who had 'held the position for ten years, end ho got as high wages as any other head->shepherd in the country. They could not grove in a- court that tho employer 'showed discrimination against him, but they knew for a certainty thai the man was sacked because he wee prominent in union mettere. Another letter was from Ashbqrton-. "Dear Thorn,—l ram having to leave this place through trying to organise the union, &ut,ite -doesuft trouble.me in tho leaet." That* tho way to make unionists, remarked the speaker. He added that the organiser in the employ of the Farm Labourers' Union had been sacked a dozen times simply because ho was connected with the union, and because he absolutely refused to sever his connection with it. Then they had a% member of their late executive, whose employer advised'hjm to get out of the union, end, when' the young fellow said lie would not the. employer said: "Look here, if you don't resign from the union altogether, I will not on,!y sack you, I will sack your father, who has been worjking on this place for twenty years/ (Cries of "Shame.") The speaker also asserted that two employees who gave evidence before the Arbitration Court about two months ago in the livery-etable keep ere' dispute, were asked to "get off the place" by their employer beforo the case wa» adjudicated upon. When the men and women employed at the Kai&poj Woollen; Mill were organised, the executive of tho union were all out 011 the employ of the company when the cose came before the Court. The Judge had stated that before a cose of intimidation could be won the .employer would practically have to admit that he eacked tho man because he was interested ni> the union. It was absolutely futile to think that under such, conditions tho unions could ever win a caee.' After dealing with other objections to tho BUI, he moved :— "That this public meeting of citizens of Christchurch protest strongly egqinst the provisions of tho Conciliation and Arbitration Act Amendment Bill, now before the country; especially those clauses dealing with the institution of Industrie! Councils, the collection of fines, the compulsion of nonunionists to contribute to tho funds of the unions, and all clauses of tho Bill which interfere with the in tern 31 management of the unions' funds, and which dictate to the unions ns'to whom they are to have as their officers." Tho motion was agreed to with a few dissentients.