STATUTE OR AWARD.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 770, 19 March 1910, Page 14

STATUTE OR AWARD.

I WHICH SHOULD BE PARAMOUNT? ' OPINION. :■ : ;:HON. 3. A. MILLAE AND THE ;;•; .'■:],-•'..' J: .EMPLOYERS; v; : '; . /Should an award' of the Arbitration : Court be liable to. be over-ridden by a :• 'legislative: enactment?.'.. This . important ■'!- question was very.' fully discussed when : ■ the Shops and Offices Amendment Bill ivas before the Labour Bills Committee ■at the close of last session. .It should ■ he' mentioned : that under the then existing local award affecting hotel and ■..; restaurant, workers, 65 ■ hours '■: per.. week :'>ero required to be worked. The.Bill that the hours for moles should , be) 60, and for females 56—a proposal wfcioh did not,meet with the approval ':';■ of Neither the employers or, the workers. representatives of the workers sug- .-.-. gested that;the. hours.should.be: 56 for : .;inales, and- 52 for females; "whilst 'the ■ employers submitted that the hours ■fought to be: 65-hours for males. 1 arid females in the case of hotel assistants, Si); hours in. the.;case of male, assistants ■ over 16 years of age. in restaurants, and ;56, hours in the <case of other, workers. (According .to the report f of ; the' evidence; . ;taken; by the committee, the ball was set Toiling by Mr. E. Carey, secretary of the : ilocijj Cooks and Waiters' "Union, '.and . ako a member of the Wellington Trades and Labour Council. He prefaced his ■remarks on-the eubject by stating that -..: be \ understood 'that Mr. Pry or, on behalf ; of-the employers, intended to urge that ; the new measure overstepped the Arbibation Court, and therefore should not ; have been introduced.. "We do ..not say that 'Parliament should fix 'our .wages, or 'details as to the time of starting," commented "buf we do say'that : m' ponnectioni with-the,- hours ''arid^'hottr- , ifeys and general 'of .the ~:lrade' it is'the duty of Parliament to 1 : 'shall be the When ■:liis.time came .to? give; evidence' in' regard , . » the Bill, Mr. Pryor,', in no half-hearted manner, 'deprecated' legislation which sought to weaken-the hands of the Arbi- , bation Court. It will-also be seen that ; the? Hon. ;J. A. Millar (in reply) em- ■ : nhatically declared that neither the •.Arbitration Court' nor any other court rishonld get power to over-ride statute . Ibtw., There is; every ..probability that the . question will engage'the' attention."of. • Parliamejit next session,-for-Mr.' Miliar' blasted that if the present Act did not .[■ Emit the poweis of the Arbitration Court • |to the statute law then it must be made ■;.;.■ to do;it. : ;. ;-•.;■■•. i-- >.:,■■; ■ ■■; i Employen Want Only . One Industrial; .■>■-';.v-.'.;.:".- Tribunal.. :' _■; ■■."

Pitfqjv on behalf of the employers, eawended th*t no good reason conld be advanced ihy legislation should be initroduced to over-ride decirions of the (Court of Arbitration/ It seemed to employers absolutely unfair that-,the,Wort-err unions should take all they could .get by-means of the Arbitration Act and ithen go to Parliament for extra cbncesjeions and secure provisions for overfriding existing awards as were asked ;ifor ;in- the Bill. The federation claimed Ithat.the' industrial .conditions such ■•■' as Trere .provided -for.-in the Bill should -either be dealt,'.with under 'the' Arbitration Act,, or, if that course was not satisfactory, to the workers, then that the : Act ■ ehould.be repealed by. Parliament. "Let ius know where we'are," continued Mr. -•Pryor. 'It, surely . appeals to ; all:. fair.minded people that it is anything but . (British fair-play for two parties', to agree, ■. ,as . they, do, to refer their 'differences to larWtration-7-to refer »their differences to. » Court provided by Parliament 'under' ; an Act in which Parliament says that that, Court's decision shall; be final-rand theni'-be'cause one side'/is not' qniia satisfied with what. it hagggot, it may come jalong and take some~ other means of getJting what it could not , get in the regular may. I may say that very: etrong feeling {indeed is ielfc by; emplojaersi throughout /the Dominion "not only injconnection with ithis BilL bnt because we. realise that if jthis.sprfc of thing is.conceded it is only -'/l beginning. As a matter of fact," itis ionly within the last few days that I have ibeen told. that the Auckland itJnion has eitherspproachedj or is about |to approach, Government-in order to ask. for legislation to over-ride the award made srith regard to the extended river limits In..the Auckland district; and-1 ask where

•tre are going to. get 'to' if this sort-of thing is-to' be permitted; To put the. inatter shortly, ,tne demand of myfederation is that we,should either have : . Arbitration; Court awards or. Parliamentary legislation, bnt not'both. So long as such legislation,is proposed.rso long shall we raise our voices against it." ' '/ '

■Would Assist to Wipe Out the Arbitration

"If the' workers do not like the Arbitration. Act," continued Mr. Prytir, "we •will help them to wipe .it- put- The restrictions that are being placed upon' the employers.and:industries of this ion . are beginning to be unbearable,: and if we find in addition'to the Arbitration Court awards,such legislation as this, and : more, .irksome conditions provided by eachineans as;this BUI, then we say we are'getting, tired of; it, and,' if'the-work-: ers are not satisfied with the Arbitration Act.let them be quite frank and say so, and we will easily wipe it out We are .prepared to meet them , .-if it comes to a inght— and I do; not: mean 'fighf in a .wrong sense—but we are prepared to meet [them on the floor of the House. We Want to know where we are, for we must lave either one tribunal or. the. other. Coming to the Bill; .we submit that if legislation is necessary-and the business ~is dealt--with, the present Shops and Offices Act provides all'the/protection ;that is required.". . . ' ■■■ :. : ■ Mr. M/Laren:.Tw. recognise that the Court is not a . legislative , ; body?—l do.not agree'with you. I say ■ /it. is a legislative body. It isiinaking iiidiistrial legislation, every.day. ;■'■', ~-■."; v • .Is not one of the things you are asking for extreme—twelve hours instead of (ten. hours a day ? The latest agreement jmdde in regard to hotels and restaurants {provides that the hours of work .for all [classes shall not exceed 65 hours, but tnot- more than 12 hours, shall be .worked tin.'any one.day. What-is the maximum [in. the other', awards ?—Eleven. hours.. ; , :

So you are'asking'us to.inteffere with .fcfhe Arbitration' Court awards?— You have eet the example. 'If you take us on our , own ground ,we say, "Wipe it out—do not interfere: with the .Arbitration Court ■awards. , " . .... \ ; ■.. ■■•;•' :\ ..•: '

: A Doubtful Kind of Finality. Jfr. T. Longi eecreiary of the Auckland Hotel and Restaurant Employees' Union, ivas cross-exainined at ■ some length npon the, question as to 'whether the workers Ihqught ii fair. that legislation having the effect of over-ruling a ;decision of the Court of Arbitration should be enacted. Mr. Eraser: Do you: : think; the estabfishment of the Arbitration Court has l»en .of benefit to the -workers' on. the . whole has undoubtedly to certain classes of workers, but there are other classes of workers to whom it has been of very little benefit. ■ :' ■ lb. Luke: You would liie to see it abolished?—l do not think the time has arrived when it should be abolished. ■Mr. Praser: Do you approve of the Court's decisions being final?— There are certain times when we do not approve of them being .final, and.w.hen we should like to carry the matter further. R.You cannot have,both; you must decide 'whether they are to be final or not? —It is fair all round. '■.■";.'. ; . " . Do you think it is final if you dis»greo with an award and begin to agitate for legislation by Parliament? Do you' not see, the danger that, if there is constant interference with , the Court by Parliament, the value of the Court will cease to exist, and the , end of it will not J>e far off?—We ae workers consider we ■have the, right to go to the' Legislature of the country and ask for a redress of grievances irrespective of whether there is.an Arbitration Court in existence, or not. We have a right to ask forDeneficiar legislation for large bodice of .■workers. . ' Irrespective of what the award of the Court might .be,' and. even though it •might."'traverse an award arrived :at by the 'Court?— The award airived- at is only for a stated terni.

"There should be Power to Vary ; . - Awards." Bnt daring that term?—lt is going to make tho work lighter as far as the Court is concerned; So far aathe hours axe concerned, they will not have to deal .with that. They will onlj; have to deal with the wages and conditions. Mr. Miaren: Do you think an Arbitration Court award should come in and override an Act of the Legislature, as is done in the case of the hoteland restanrant employees ?—No, I certainly do not think so. ' . '

Mr. Hardy: Tou said you would try by every possible means to uplift your fellow-workers. Now, in the event of nn award , not being satisfactory, .and you ask us as. representatives , of the people to pass legislation in order the masses, what would you say to that?— Certainly, if there is no possibility of getting anything tangible from the Court it would be right. : And.if the.., Court still/jnaintains the sixjy-five hours yon'would come to'Parlia' ment while the award is in existence and ask for a law that will vary it?—My answer ie this: That any man who is a father would never like to think that any -of his children would be called upon to work such outrageous hours as sixty-five per week. . . In the event of the Court giving an award, and that award not pleasing your union or yourself ; you would ask Parliament to pass legislation that would vary it?—We would ask Parliament to pass legislation that would .be-.beneficial, but it might, not run -counter; at' all. When -an award is given and is ■' not satisfactory, will you come,to. Parliament and ask' us to vary that' award?— Tes, undoubtedly I would recommend my people'to do , that. .

A Ministerial Bomb. Questioning Mr. D. O'Connor, proprietor of the Grand Central Private Hotel, the Hon. J. A.Jifillar asked: You ere opposing the provisions of this Bill making the hours sixty per week?—Tes. Are you aware/of.your present,position? —Wβ are working'sixty-five hours at the present time. Ara .you. aware that'.at the expiration oft the. existing award , you have_ t to come down to fifty-two hours?—l should be sorry: ■■ Read the Act—The Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act, 1908, Section 74—(1) "The provisions of an award-or industrial agrecment.Jshall.continne in force until the , expiration of the period for which- -it-was-made, ■ notwithstanding that before such p.xDiration any ■ provision award or 'industrial agreement',". by any Act. passed after ' the commencement of this' . Act, unless-in thatrAcf the contrary is expressly provided. (2)' On the expiration of the said period the award or in-dustrial.-.agreement, during its further, subsistence, .be deemed to be modified'iii'accordance with then in force." In'o.ther"Trords,'"the'"Court is bound-'tb -givp ife>,award, in accordance with 'that; esdstiiig.'law,?:-? ;;think . our award, expires, next'.''year;' .Trlj? _ simply means' that" we shall have to go' into the Bankruptcy Court.-, : ;.,. ■~'■ .. That is- the law as ' it stands. .. The power.of the .Court: is.Jimited, and; it has to give-any 'award-in accordance with the existing; law ;'so ;that, unless you get the hours; fixed by. statute in the meantime, you will have''the" hours fixed at fiftytwo. The: existing;award runs until its terms, finishes; Rafter it'■(finishes, the Conrt cannot grant any;! pther^ , number of hours. Unless an alteration is made in the Shops'and'Offices Act now you will have'.to ■ expectVthe fifty-two hours.—l was not aware .of' that. , ,\ ■

:.■■■'.iOpinion by-Mr.;Skerrett, K.C. When a; later sitting of the committee was heldj/Mr.' Pryor. said'that in the interim the employers ' had ,: considered the re'triark(.ty the. Hon. J. A..' Millar that''they.'must 'either:accept the -Bill-or come ■ under ;the fifty-two hours provision of .the" Shops and.'Offices 1 Act, by: virtue of-.the operations of■ Section 74 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. . He wenfon to say that they could notagreo with Mr. Millar's interpretation; and (that, they, were prepared to'take all the responsibility relating to what might' be done to, them under. Section 74 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act without the.Shops and Offices Amendment Bill being made,law v ab'.v:the ■ -present .time, They, had, found., that.; sub-Section i of Section' : 6 "of the* Shop's and Omces Act specifically : gave the Arbitration Court power ito fix different hours from those provided by the Act. Upon being consulted on the point,, Mr. Skerrett, K.C, had advised the employers that that was so, and further-it was his, opinion that from the date of the expiry of ;■ the period fixed by the existing awards,, and until the newer award or agreement was made, the awards ; would - j,continue in force as to hours;, of'.'employment; also, that in any future awards made by the Arbitration Court under the law as it at present stood, the provision of the award as to hours of employment would override the hours of employment fixed by the provisions of the Shops and Offices Act. In I Mr. Pryor said: If the, employers in question were .to submit to come under the provisions and the conditions! proposed in the Bill, 'we should bey, submitting to hotelassistants being' dragged in as shopassistants, and.i.to the restricting conditions , for , every restaurant-assistant. We do not feel disposed to do either one or the other. We are quite prepared to accept the Minister's challenge if we are challenged—l am not using the expression in an offensive' way—and take all the risks under the law as it at present stands. ■■'' ■■■':'.

The Hon. J. v A. Millar: I am.' quite prepared to give you the challenge., Mr. .Pryor,: That is, to take out the reference to, hotels and restaurants?.

"Let the Matter Be Decided.? Hon.' J. A. Millar: lam prepared; to knock out the provisions which the Crown law officers say will bring in the .52 hours—which:' they say limits the powers of the ■ Arbitration Court to the staute law. I Want it decided, because, if that clause of. the Act does not do it, then it must-be, made to do it. -The Arbitration Court is never going to be granted powerj.lto override what the higher Court of Parliament has done. Parliament fixes:.the laws, and no Court can override'statute li.w. ■ So'far as.this committee is concerned, I do not want to be blamed hereafter. I am quite prepared to say, ?Let the matter be decided.". But if-'you do' get the 52 houra you have to get it in the terms of the award. lam advised to this effect. I could quite see-how impossible it is to ask the hotels tq:Ywork only 52 hours; and therefore I was .'prepared to split the difference from 65.V: "

Mr. Pryor: Itj seems a fair thing to all parties concerned that your offer should be accepted. i i Hon. J. A. Millar: It is not only this case that is affected; it is all other cases. When the Court refused to jive an award in accordance ■ with the bank-to-bank clause in the case of the miners, the question was put to the Crown law officers, and they drafted a law which provided that the'.Arbitration Court could not override statute law: Neither the Arbitration Court' nor.;.any,,_.other Court shall get power:'..'t6 , I ; o) , erride' i; statute law. Mr. Pryor: The employers "generally say that Parliament has advisedly relegated certain powers to the Arbitration Court, and.we say we must know where we are —we must have either the . Arbitration Court or Parliament to settle the matter. Mr. Hardy: Tou do not approve of Parliament interfering? '.

Among .th? Employers. ■ Hr.'Prybr: Therej,ijS .more ,rsal resentment boing felt by*,the employers of the Dominion over provisions'' of this : kind than ie.. perhaps believed: 'The •■bank-to-bank clause'was arid the construction that was proposed'to" , be put on Section 74 of the ■ Conciliation and Arbitration Act. There is. a stronger feeling shown in connection- with that than on anything else that has come before' us .since I have; been an : executive officer of the• federation:- .<• ■>"•>■■. • -~ : Hon., J-. ! A. :.Millar,:'.,lt'is. ,tobl late to come at this times of day'and' say the Court has power to alter: the-law. The Court, when hearing' fresh demands, cannot in any award exceed the hours laid down in the Shops and Offices Act. You have an award now. That award must hold good until such time as a newaward is made.■ .:' ; ■'.';.. Mr. Pryor: That is not what you put before us. You directed our attention to what Section 74' did at-.the. expiration of tho period for which the award was made. . Hon: -Mr. -Millar: I refei-red to the'eurrency of .tho.award.- An award takes its course until a new award takes its place. When an application is made for a new award, then the Court cannot exceed 52 Hours a week.;-• > •■•■■.• ■ "-■.••■■.