ACT AND AWARD.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 457, 16 March 1909, Page 6

ACT AND AWARD.

DEPUTATION TO HON. A. W. HOGG. A LIVELY INTERVIEW. MINISTER'S REMARKS RESENTED. 'A deputation representing the Furniture porkers' Union, and consisting of Messrs. Moriarty (secretary), Gandy (president), and Cave (vice-president) had a somewhat animated discussion with the Hon. A. W. Hogg (Minister for Labour) last night. Mr. T. M. Wilford, M.P., in introducing the deputation, explained that officers of the labour Department had taken up the position that certain provisions of tlio Furnituro Workers' Award were in conflict with the Factories Act, and. must therefore bo inoperative. Tho union; however, hold that the. award was valid, and must be maintained.

A Preference Clauso. >Mr. Moriarty said one causo of troublo was connected with the preference clause. The D.I.C. discharged a non-unionist during slackness-of work, and afterwards put . tho same man 011 again, whilo unionists wcro out of work. Mr. Moriarty read correspondence showing that tho Department, after making inquiries at tho instance of the union, held that the man had not been discharged, but moroly put off for a short time. Mr. Lomas (Chief Inspector of Factories) had declined to ask tho Arbitration Court for an interpretation of tho award. That was what tho union wished for, as similar cases wero occurring frequently. Mr. Lomas had referred to Section 109 of tho Arbitration Act (Consolidated Statutes) to show that a man was not 'deemed to bo dismissed if ho was suspended for less than ten days, but the union held that that clauso did not apply in such cases as that under notice. ,

Weekly payment of Wages. 'Another complaint was that'certain employers (Mr. Pegden, of Palmerston North, and Messrs. Aitken and Evans, of Feilding) had been paying wages fortnightly, instead of weekly, as required by the award. The union thought a conviction for breach of award should be sought for, though a penalty was not desired. Mr. Lomas, however, had stated that his instructions' wore not to ask for less' than a £10 fine, and as that would bo too severe in tho cases under notice, he could do nothing beyond cautioning the employers. The speaker added that there was tho utmost good feeling between the employers and the union, and when disagreements arose in the city furniture factories he usually called on tho employers, and a settlement was soon arrived at. When another case of fortnightly payment was brought before the Department—this time at Hastings—the inspector stated that the award was in conflict with the Factories !Act. Yet another difference of opinion between the union and tho Department had to do with payment of wages at the rate of time and a half on Anniversary Day. Mr. Moriarty stated that the union had tho greatest respect ■ for Mr. Lomas and the Department, and recognised that they had .done much for the workers. There was no wish'' to "quarrel with the officers. He also again emphasised the existence of the friendliest relations between the employers and the union. .1

The Minister In Reply. The Minister said he was pleased to meet such a deputation as tho present one, be-' cause free discussion generally tended to improve the feeling between parties. He thought, however, that there was not very much in the complaints that had been laid before him. A great many tradesmen and small manufacturers in tho country, districts had a very hard strugglo to get on, and ho did not want to seo Stem unduly hampered in their efforts. In regard to tho case of tho non-unionist who was sent away for a few days owin" to slackness of work, and then re-employed, ho fancied that any humane employer having a man working for him and finding it ; necessary to let him go for a few days, owing to slackness of work, would bo doing a great wrong if ho did not take him back when he was able to do so. Mr. Word: ."But there is the question of the preference clause." The Minister: "But is that going to take ©fißct when, a, man is morcly away from work for a few days? As I read the Act, ten days must elapse before, the man is deemed to be dismissed." Mr. Wilford argued that Section 109 of the [Arbitration Act (Consolidated Statutes), to which the Minister was referring, did not apply to the case of a non-unionist, but to the case of a man who was a member of a union The question was where did the preference clause come in, if a non-unionist was to he taken back after being discharged?

"No More Unionists." Mr. Moriarty said that when the nonnnionist in. question was taken back there ;wero married men who were members of the ■union out of work. A non-unionist usually ■was one because ho was too moan to pav a subscription to benefit tho workers in the trade. Tho Minister: "Yon might just as well ergue that a man is dismissed when ho does not wort between Saturday and Monday." Mr."Word: "No; becauso that is not a period for which wages are paid. You have given a preference, and if it doesn't come in 3 They are asking you Mr. Moriarty (to the Minister): ,"If the ruling you have given is right, there will Boon be no more unionists." .The Minister: "I am only giving you my opinion as Minister for Labour. I think it is dangerous to rush to extremes." He had spoken freely, and he would speak with equal freedom m regard to the nex-t matter that had been mentioned. .There they had a man paying wages once a fortnight, and the statement was that ho was committing a breach of any award or any statute. When he became awaro that ho ought to pay weekly ho commenced to do so at once, showing that ho was ready to keep tho law, and that it was a mere accident.

Departmental Report Challenged. .Mr. Moriarty: "I should like to ask you, D?rtS?" " M ™" cf °» Mr. Moriarty: "Oh!" The Minister went on to' say that, although a broach of the award had been committed, tno Act had been complied with. Mr. Wilford argued that tho Act directed that wages should bo \wid not moro than, fortnightly, and that would include and permit weekly payment of wages, as stipulated in the award. Mr. Moriarty said that, as the Minister Jras relying upon a report from the Labour Department, lie wished to point out that ; i; Culver ' the inspector, in reporting to the Department, stated that Messrs. Aitken and Evans were paying higher than award wages, and did not seem to be aware that they were working longer hours. They had since reduced the hours, and were paying tho minimum award wages. The Minister said his opinion was not basod on Mr. Culver's information. He was bound to mako inquiries for tho Department, and he was sorry to hear disparaging remarks about Mr. Culver, or suggestions that ho had not done his duty. Ho had known Mr. Culver for many years, and ho had been a good friend to Labour.

The Minister Indignant. Mr. Moriarty: "You're saying it was by accident that Pegden did so and 'so, and in that you're basing your information on Mr. Culver's report." Mr. Hogg (with warmth): "Have you come hero to make an attack on an officer of the Labour Department?" Mr. Moriarty: "No, no I" Tho Minister: "You're doing sol I am very sorry you should como here and make nn attack on an officer of a Department that was established to help you—and that is what you are doing to-night." The Minister went on to read a portion of a report from Mr. Lomas, quoting the Factories Act, 1903, Section 3ft, as to fortnightly payments, and said that no award could override statute law.

Mr. Wilford again argued that tho Act did not prevent an award being mado with provision for weekly payment of wages. That was the answer to Mr. Lomas's contention. Mr. Moriarty said that by stating that tho omploye should be cautioned. Mr. Lomas had virtually admitted that thero had been a broach. Ministerial Advice Resented. Tho Ministor said that Mr. Lomas considered thero had been 110 breach. Ho would -seo3lr. Loinns and the other officers with reference to tho proper construction of that section of tho Act. Tho point was a somewhat difficult one, and ho did not protend to have a large amount of legal knowledge. He would strongly adviso them to work in harmony witli the employers. Tho Department was trying to do its best to help tho unions, and he did not think they should soizo ©very opportunity to drivo the employers beforo the Court. Mr. Moriarty: " I told yon at the start that we want to pull in with them; and wo do so, and they recognise it. Wo don't belong to the Trades and Labour Council." Tho Ministor: " I hope you will do as you say in tho future." Mr. Moriarty: "I did not say anything about tho future. Wo do so now." Ho was very sorry for tho ruling the Minister had givon as to tho preferenco clause. It would mako a great difference to unionists. Thoy had found that night that there was practically no prefercnco to unionists. Tho Minister had favoured non-unionists, who wero mean men, unwilling to give sixpenco to help fight for the good of the trade. It fas a bit of bad luck that they had asked for tho Minister's ruling, becauso otherwise a good many employers, when they put off a nonunionist, woffld induco him to join the union.

More Advice. The Minister: "I have givon no ruling whatever." Ho would like to seo harmony among all classes of workers, whether they were unionists or not, and between Capital and Labour. They .should work sido by side. Iri a country like this, with its young industries, employers wero often in a moro difficult position, with their cares and responsibihties, than the workers. Tho object of tho Labour Department was to protect, not ono side alone, but both sides—to protect the _ men who f had sunk ' their capital in manufacturing industries, and the men they employed as well. If they only looked at things in the right way, thero would bo very, little trouble. Ho thought the new Act would offect a great improvement, in causing breaches of award to be dealt with promptly by a Magistrate. Inspectors should not seek every opportunity to bring employers and workers to tho Court. Unless there was a clear case, they j should do no more than givo a warning. An employer should have an opportunity "of doing what was right. That was only fair and reasonable. If ho persisted in doing wrong, and thero was a clear case against him, he should be brought before tho Magistrate. Tho Quostlon Still Open. Aftor somo further conversational discussion, Mr. Wilford suggested that Mr. Moriarty should write to tho Minister, submitting two questions, which tho Minister should then place before tho Solicitor-Gen-eral for his opinion. The questions wero: (1) How long does a non-unionist havo to be out of employment before he is deemed to be dismissed? (2) If a non-unionist is dismissed, can his employer reinstate him instead of a unionist, when there is a preference clauso? The Minister assented to this course. Mr. Wilford: "I thing that will be satisfactory to everyone. It shows that the matter is still open."