MINISTER FOR LABOUR AND THE PREFERENCE CLAUSE.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 467, 27 March 1909, Page 13

MINISTER FOR LABOUR AND THE PREFERENCE CLAUSE.

Sir.—lll yesterday's issue of your paper you publish the result of ail interview with the Minister for Labour on tho preference clause, and the stand our union took on the matter, also tho decision of the Arbitration Court, given in 1904, on the samo subject. I notice in your report also that tho Minister stated'that lie had not heard from me again since our interview on Monday, March 15. Well, sir, I am not in tho habit of doing things on my own, but await instructions from tho union, and as tho Minister admitted to the deputation, and furthermore showed by his argument that ho knew nothing about tho matter, it was essential that I should await instructions on this occasion, for tho union might think it was waste of time writing to him again. It is quite true that ho has written ine, but to what effect? It is this, to state that ho now refuses to do what ho promised the deputation he would do, namely, submit our questions to tho Solicitor-General for his opinion 011 same. . Ho certainly sent mo a copy of the judgment as published by you, and lie says in the faco of that, tho contention of his Department is correct to the vory letter. I may say that I am very much surprised at tho Minister taking the stand ho is now doing. If ho was at all amonabJo to reason I might feel inclined to argue tho point with him, but I am afraid he is not. Just fancy a Minister trying to arguo 111 the faco of all the amendments that have taken placo to tho Conciliation and Arbitration Act sinco 1904, and also to tho Workers Compensation for Accidents Act, _ that a judgment given prior to same still holds good today! If tho Minister will again look up the matter ho will find that when that judgment was given, thero was 110 definition as to when a worker was dismissed. Had tho samo case como beforo the Court twelve months later, then the Court would have been guided by an amendment passed in 19J3, which stated that in any proceedings before, tho Court relating to tho dismissal of a worker, a worker shall bo deemed to bo dismissed when ho is suspended for a longer period than 10 days, a definition which, by tho way, would altogether have altered their ruling. Since then, though, this particular clauso has been repealed and in its place we find 0110 rotating to tho dismissal of unionists for specified reasons, and 10 days' suspension is accepted as proof of the dismissal. No mention is made of non-unionists, for tho simple reason that they can onlv ho dismissed for two reasons, nanioly, either incompetency or slackness of work, and Par-

Lament must have thought that tho fact of boing put off from work at all, in tho caso of tho non-unionist, was sufficient proof of dismissal, otherwise they would havo defined it. Howovor, according to tho Minister, a non-unionist can bo suspended for as long a poriod aa tho employer likes, without being dismissed, whilo according to Act of Parliament a unionist is dismissed if suspended for 10 days. This is a lino ruling for tho Minister for Labour to give, and should augur well for ins great dream of harmony between Labour ami Capital. Trusting yon will insert this, and thanking you in anticipation,—l am, etc., D. MORIAIITY, . Secretary, . Wellington Furniture Union of Workers. March 22.