A LITTLE FRICTION.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 949, 17 October 1910, Page 8

A LITTLE FRICTION.

LABOUR OFFICIALS CRITICISED. "NEGLECTFUL OF THEIR DUTY." HON.;j. Ai MILLAR'S WARM REJOINDER. ' Various. ofiicials m the Labour Department wore tlio subject of a strong indictment made 'in the House- of Representatives on Saturday morning. moved that, the .'first .item bo reduced by £1, as an indi-

cation . that;the, (Department",had. failed to carry out . its duties and obligations in- a proper maimer.. Ho said that complaints ; hid' como from workers and, employers''all...pver New. Zealand.' , He. -would, however, like to praise the wono done Mr. ;Tregear himself..-',-What, was . the reason for the'waiit of conftdenco in the Department?, A number .of-, now,, felt; :'that they should bring thoir.own cases. 'It'was-;alleged, that the.Department had wrongly refused.!,to v prosecute r a'nd -obtain iiiterpretat'ions - of; 1 awards when requested so ; fa; do. In particular, ; ho would- like to refer., to tlio position .of the Furniture Workers'- Union ih';Weliingt6n.; All' the .em-ployers-buti one ;had .'nothing'. but 'goon to -say in regard' to' this • union. Ho could show ;that\in: rcEard;>to this . union the Department had ib'een , neglectful of i. its duty. There was a'.-case that wasbrought against Phillips,/Wright; andCompany, of Napier. In a letter signed by Mr. , -Lomas, 'it was'-; stated : "Mr. Goths, ; ohe.:;.'inspector) pointis. .out;-th'at ; r ho;f<nMd'.that^;'the^fivm l \yas".ri'6t:.l>ouha by the awards -and' he-'states that if lie, wished;. to;; shield' the , firm'he could' have told , them 'so, but so 'far'" as lie. knowa;'" : ';tli6y--'?/wer6/.\not' : /aware'. l-'.0f.'.,-tho- - : The inspector ; himself, ! . in a letter-had asked-, the; firm,;-whether,-.they, intended ! to "admic the'breach .so' as".to save unnecessary costs.' It--was.a remarkable sta*t.o of affairs. ;Mr. Wilford ; thM read a ■ list'of' cases:'which..the ■ Fur-' nituro .Workers'; Union'-had ■ taken. .after. tlio Department had .refused to do so. ; K one .case, /,; a;; fine of £15 jwasjmposed ;• in another, £10, and m a third the fino "amounted :.'to', ! £s, ; whilst in; all cases but one .a conviction' was Could jibe .said'that tho Department was justified: in' refusing; tov take' the cases; : • v .

.. Department Will Not be,lnstructed. » i J./a. Millar, said that last year the Department took in . all * 5-17 cases; and the umonsi'took 26 cases. Of the' cases taiken hy the {unions, the Furniture,. Workers hero brought most; ■NeitherMr-.'- ..other man was' going-to instruct the Department 'as to . when it .should, take a cone. If the Department declined to take a case, the union ; : wasentitled ito do' so.' why;*.the;. ; Department,, \ take,the; cases' ,ih^questioii; : ;.. As-: Regards' '. : thiQ'Napte'Vcas© v 'Wilford, the f inspector *$81.'oily' > his 'duty. He.'did. not know.-at the time .that the firm was '-notva- party to . the award.- On one occasion, Mr. Moriarti i had asked him if he were going to shif an inspector 11

an inspector. . In-.reply-ho had- told him : that : ho would' not. 'shift' any . man . who was doing, his duty.. I When'-.the Act-, came down :Mr. WJford could,' if Tie . liked, movo ; that : the - powei^to. tako cases shoidd. : rest..'with the ; unions} alone/,;;' . Mr.- -Wilford,- in :• t& 'course of •' further. remarks, said he would:admit that the.,;Department'. should-.-investigate : all. questions.,' But what kind of a j merit': was; it. when inVeig{ft '; : cases out [ of ;■ nine v which : \riy refused j,'{o; take the' :had'/--b'pen-breaches? kit ft-': :'v Tho.Hon. 'J; 'A.- 1 Millar replied ho was not . going 'to' allow-, employers to 'bia"? ".-'tlie; Departnient'.' ; ; jlf ' be/.;Vere;Jt6, allqw-'.fhat-it. would ..mean t-iiat.".the,'Department would bo wiped out:->■ He was not going to allow tlie 'Department', to ;be used far such a y /ftMr.:: Wilfo-rd r v 1 saiel,in view."-of theexte-nt;of' the be said, -tliH Vthe .'.caseiv;i'were>-in the nature of. pinprickirig-.'.. ... .' - : :Q'p' 1 '- The' Cases In' Question. -. The Minister, replied'..that .in ono case tho Department;did-.riot :appear; in ..another i ; figh^^':i.MpthM:'j' ; Hn , ;'.'stin.?.'anothOT'i : !the "union'.! secrettf^;, ; that.lie'-was' iiiotgoiiig to .gp^ori;withVtihe .case,', and in the other; in^ahces'}the;.'Department, had good reasons -for'-nob bringing kvscs. -:: uWr. M'Laren (Labour member for ;.W -;'.'^id'• notv think jthat, reasons;; hM.;been.;-;, : ad-; ivancld -f or.condemning.' the;• Department:; iif- t-lie. unions were c ;to".h'aye sibility of briiignJ-VJcaMs-vthey ': should get some proportion of- the .fines to meet their ojsts. v He would admit 'that ho knew' of • so'mev cases where t-hero had. been carelessness/'.on tho part of .the'officials p"f. the. Department... Thero was .no general'"outcr t v-by. the unions, against the .Department.. ; Where-.a; .union' Specially, qualified representative it should -be; aliowed-to bring

cases. Mr.- Arnold (Dtmedm, Central) said '-that a statement- ■ by.- Mr: Wilford that' the I%niture Workers' Union was the father' oh ,the 'Conciliation Council, system ■ .was absurd. ;'. He';.'! knew.,': that 'there was a ;. certain;, .amount > ; of discontent: against ', the ; Department-, in Dimedin, but it had ..never . be-an so keen as to find expression'.. '-■< The De-; partment ; should arrange for - officers v o£ j unions to take' where the- inspectors ' were not-so fannliar v/ith the positioti.' The amendment was rejected on-the' voices.