ARBITRATION COURT.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20038, 20 September 1930, Page 20

ARBITRATION COURT.

ABOLITION FAVOURED. The abolition of the Arbitration Court wa§ favoured by the Mid-Can-terbury Provincial Executive of ' the New Zealand Farmers' Union at its meeting yesterday and a motion' to this effect was passed during a discussion on the amendments to the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Mr J. R. Dalton said that the Arbitration Court was the greatest handicap in the country to-day. The Arbitration Act contained all sorts ot silly restrictions that were crippling industry, find these had been largely introduced by lal»qr extremists. "I maintain that the present adverse conditions of New Zealand to-day are due to the Arbitration Court,'' lie said. "The Government of to-day should tackle the ' economic problem with which the country is faced.'' He moved that the Union is in favour of the abolition of the Arbitration Court and the retention of this -Conciliation. Council. '

•_ Mr F. G. Evans eeoonded the motion, stating that wages would have to come down. He only wished that the motion had embodied a recommendation for the redaction of wages in the Civil Service.

Mr 6. W. Leadley said that the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitral tion amendments were only a deeplaid scheme to bring farmers within the scope of the Arbitration Court. The greater part of the trouble of unemployment was due to the influence of the Arbitration Act. There was plenty of work to be done in the county, but the- (cost of labour had been up to such a pitch that primary and secondary industry? employers afford further development. Relief wages were too high «ther rely IT B ttan less money. -■ .Mr E Bwro: I. don't tfainkwe diould rote on this untilwe thoroughly understand it. There is .not one man 18 conversant wi«b the proposed amendments to the Arbitration Act » „,P e president: W«* have to make up H n tmi ***s?*,wo>«W. bxt u, M. B. Lil! g&id ho wia in ticTcourt tion of Tie president (Mr <£. Tait): We wake ourselves a laugh-ing-rtocV in deafin* with aaenfflts we don t understand, and I think w® stick to our straight-out objection to bnnging fam labourers within scope « toe Ajrbitra&ieo, Qoott

could not espeot to rase as that wa^^gororM^MMß^^^^^W the costs of- Wwrtn* come down, f \ . The rnotiqa addition that the' pared to endorse pat forward in the tbn, and ArUtcriawT»BHßßß^B^Bß === s ==^T^SSfflHlß^