ARBITRATION BILL.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20500, 19 March 1932, Page 15

ARBITRATION BILL.

PASSAGE CONTESTED. FREE RESORT TO CLOSURE. THIRD READING AGREED TO. (press ASSOCIATIO* telegram.) WELLINGTON, March 18. The frequent ringing of the division bells and numerous applications of the closure characterised an all-night sitting of the House of Representatives, urgency having been aecorded the passage of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill. The Committee stage was still in progress at 8.30 this morning. Labour's attack on the Bill was continued throughout the day. The lengthy sitting was made even more strenuous than usual because no adjournments for refreshment were taken, and frequent applications of the closure and divisions gave members little opportunity for rest.

The clause which provides that the terms of settlement effected by the Conciliation Council are to operate as an industrial agreement was under discussion when the telegraph office closed at 2 o'clock this morning.

Mr C. H. Chapman (Lab., Wellington North) moved an amendment to enable the terms to be regarded as an award on application by the assessors. The closure was applied and the amendment %vas defeated, the clause being adopted by 38 votes to 23. Mr P. Fraser (Lab., Wellington Central) then moved that the Acting-Chair-man (Mr J. A. Nash) should leave the Chair on the ground that the rights of the minority had not been maintained by the Chairman, only two speakers having spoken on Mr Chapman's amendment.

The Prime Minister (the Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes) protested against remarks which ho said he had heard in the lobby from Labour members as he was going out for a cup of tea, to tho effect that, he would soon be brought back. He complained that he had actually been brought back into tho Chamber by a call for a quorum. He added that if that "sort of thing was going to happen, members on the Government benches would have to insist on the closure in the interests of the rights of the majority. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr H. E. Holland) contended that Mr Forbes had moved the closure solely in a fit. of pique. Mr 'Holland, in turn, insisted that the rights of the minority and fair speech must be maintained. Tho motion was rejected by 38 votes to 23. An Alleged Lie. When a clause was submitted empowering any employer or trado union to seek exemption from an industrial agreement within one month of its notification being received, Mr J. A. Lee (Lab. Grey Lynn) interjected in the course of a speech by the Minister for Labour (the Hon. A. Hamilton): "You are using this clause to break awards." Mr Hamilton: No,. ■ Mr Lee: You are telling a lie. The Chairman of Committees (Mr S. G. Smith): Do I understand you to accuse the Minister of lying? Mr Lee: Yes, deliberately lying. Mr Spiith: I hoye you realise the seriousness of the statement. Mr Lee: Yes, I withdraw. The clause was eventually passed by 38 votes to 23. After a clause dealing with conditions under which disputes might be referred to the Arbitration Court had been discussed for some time th«* closure was applied. • An amendment moved by Mr K. McKeen (Lab., Wellington South), seeking to provide that a vote of the majority of the assessors should be sufficient to refer the dispute to the Court, was rejected by 37 votes to 22. _ Mr D. G. Sullivan (Lab., Avon) moved that where the parties were unable to agree the matter in dispute should be referred to the Court, The Conciliation Commissioner should be empowered to refer it in the public interest to the Court for settlement. This was defeated by 37 votes to 2*. The clause was adopted by 37 votes to' 22. Adjournment Refused. At 7.15 a.m. Mr Forbes suggested an adjournment for breakfast. The Leader of the Opposition submitted that an adjournment till 2.30 p.m. .would meet the wishes of the House. A chorus of voices: No. "All- right," said Mr Holland. We will go right on then." . The Committee went on to consider a clause making provision for reference back to the Conciliation Council of disputes in respect of which an award had not been made by the Court at the passing of the £ct. . . . ~ The Leader of the Opposition said that this would mean proceedings de novo, .and would be a senseless duplication of work. , ' • The clause was adopted after the closure had been applied. The Minister moved an amendment to the next clause, which provides for the review of existing awards. a amendment stipulated that any that had been in existence more than six months, and had an unexpired term of more than three months, at the date of application, could be brought under review and a new award made in neji thereof, if asked for. Mr Sullivan: That makes-the clause worse. , .. _ The Minister: The, clause goes further than it did previously. _ The Minister's Amendment was adopted, and the clause was passed. Piecework. . The next clause considered, related to payment on a piecework basis. j Mr J. W. Munro . (Lab., Dunedin North) moved an amendment stipulating that the piecework rate should be not less than 20 per cent, above the award rate. He said that this would safeguard the workers against sweating condition i. Mr Munro submitted a further amendment with the. object of stipulating that negotiations respecting the terms of an agreement for employment on a piecework basis should take place between the employer and the union representing the workers, instead., of between employers and individual workers, as set' out by the Bill. He contended that if employers were placed in the position of being able to bargain with individual employees they would be able to force down conditions lower and lower. No worker's livelihood would be safe, because an employer at any time might bring along a man prepared to do the work at a sweated rate. Mr W. E. Parry (Lab., Auckland Central) and Mr R. Semple (Lab., Wellington East) vigorously appealed to the

Prime Minister to accept the latter amendment declaring that unless some such protection were afforded workers might be forced to take drastic action. They asserted that they would unhesitatingly back up such action against the abuse whcih would be possible under the clause as it stood.

The Leader of the Opposition also appealed to the Prime Minister to accept Mr Munro's amendment, pointing out that under economic pressure workers might be forced to accept inhuman terms.

Efforts to amend the clause failed and it was thereupon adopted. Labour members continued to demand a division at every stage. The clause providing for the appointment of industrial committees was passed, with the result tbat at 1 p.m. there were only three more to be passed to bring about the completion of the Committee stage. The clause providing' that awards should not be applicable to relief works was resisted, Mr A. S. Richards (Lab., Roskjll) moving as an amendment that the wages and conditions of relief workers hhouid be determined by the Arbitration Court,

The closure was applied to the discussion on the clause.

The amendment was defeated and the clause passed. There was a brisk debate on , the clause relating to awards affecting the employment of musterers in Canterbury, Otago, Southland, and Marlborough. The clause set out that where a worker had voluntarily agreed to accept a less rate of wages than the rate fixed by the award he should not be entitled to recover any part of the difference between the two rates. After a discussion (reported elsewhere) the closure was applied and the clause adopted. A new clause relating to the appointment of additional Conciliation Commissioners was "adopted on a division. Protection of Women. Mr McCombs then moved a new clause to provide that in cases where the number of workers concerned in an industrial dispute included 60 per cent, or more ■of women reference to the Arbitration Court should automatically follow upon the failure of the Conciliation Council to come to an agreement. Mr W. E. Parry (Lab., Auckland Central) appealed to the Government to accept the clause, contending that women workers were defenceless. He felt sure if the Government accepted it it would not be ashamed of its action twelve months hence. Mr Hamilton said the Government had given careful consideration to the matter, and its failure to make provision in the direction advocated by Mr McCombs had not been owing to hard-heartedness on its part. Mr W. E. Barnard (Lab., Napier): The age of chivalry is over. Mr Hamilton: Oh, no. Continuing,.the Minister it was considered that the line of action recommended by. Labour members would not be in the best interests at the present time. There were many women today whose jobs were very difficult to retain, and one of the main things was to keep them in jobs. Mr Semple: Sweating them in the process. Mr Hamilton: We are not sweating them.

The Minsiter said the Government had to accept the responsibility for what it was doing and had weighed the position carefully. The Leader of the Opposition: It means that the Government is going to force women's wages down. Mr Hamilton: Not at all. I believe the Bill will have the effect of keeping more people in their jobs. The Leader of the Opposition said tha% if the Minister"'had made up his mind that no protection was to he given to women and girls it could only mean that it was considered necessary either to. speed up work, reduce wages, or lengthen hours, possibly all of these. "It was recognised that the Arbitration Act had had its main benefit in "its application to women workers in ,sweated industries. He predicted that it would be found that conditions and wages would become worse and worse in New Zealand. An Offer Declined. . At 6.45 p.m. the Prime Minster stated* that members had had a good discussion and. he' suggested that tbe House go-to a division. If the Opposition members agreed to such a course he would undertake to look into their proposal before the Bill went to the Upper House. Mr Holland said there wais a disinclination on» the Labour benches to accept the Prime Minister's offer. He thought that the House should go on till midnight or . so with the third reading and have to-morrow free. Mr Forbes: I am quite willing to accept that. ' Mr Semple said he r personally .was opposed to Mr Forbes'a suggestion.- The Prime Minister had given no definite promise to amend the clause. Mr Forbes? No. Mr Semple went on to say that if the Prime Minister would give such a definite promise he would accept the offer. The debate was continued until p.m., wfcen the Minister, for Lands moved the closure, which was applied and the amendment was defeated by 39 votes to 22. _ ~ '.■■ 1 Amendments Defeated. • . *' Immediately Mr "W. Nash (Lab., Hutt) moved a further amendment to abolish the' penalties for strikes aind lock-outs from'the Act; There was no other-speaker to .this amendment, which was defeated after a division by 40 votes to 23. A further amendment was moved by Mr J. O'Brien (La*b., Westland) which aimed at the prevention of the formation of bogus unions. He said hogus unions had been formed in the.past by drunkards and gaolbirds, and his amendment was to prevent such a-scandal occurring in the future. 1 Mr Semple, supporting the amendment, said it provided that the Trades Union movemest .should be instead of destroyed. , Mr O'Brien's motion : was also defeated and Mr Parry then moved that in so far as seamen are concerned the whole of the Dominion be treated as one industrial district. He considered that New Zealand had been lagging behind in industrial organisation. Farming, transport, building, etc., should be organised nationally. This was also defeated. . An identical amendment, moved by Mrv C. Carr (Lab., Timaru), met .the same fate. The next amendment iVas sponsored by Mr H. G. R. Mason (Lab., Auckland Suburbß), who moved that to unionists be included in.the definition "industrial matter." The Supreme Court, he said, had ruled that the Arbitration Court stepped outside its province when it defined "industrial matter" as including preference to unionists. This was .also defeated and proved to bo the last of the Opposition amendments.

The passing of the schedule of the Bill was challenged by the Opposition, but was carried by 40 votes to 22, and the Bill was reported, to the House at 10.25 p.m. , - .' Third Reading., The third reading was then* proceeded with, . Mr Holland said hp supposed the Prime Minister would declare the Bill a money bill, so that it could not be amended when it went to the TJpper House. . Mr Forbes: No.

Mr; Holland: Then I hope it will be amended in the other House. Mr Forbes contended that the present debate had been, very one-sided. Labour members: That's your fault. The Prime Minister said if there had 1 been speeches made on his side of the House they would never Jtave got the Bill through at all. "There has been a disastrous drop in our income,", he said, *' which has caused us to make a very serious revision of our national income, and during the /recent election the country was made fully aware of the Government's programme of compulsory conciliation and voluntary arbitration. There is no use shutting our eyes to the; fact that where' there is compulsory arbitration there is unemployment, and I am sure that under the syßtem proposed in the Bill there will be more factories wqrking than there otherwise would be." The Bili was read a third time at 1.55 a.m. and passed l?y 34 votes to 19. The House adjourned until 7JO p.m. on Monday.