ARBITRATION LAW

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1585, 31 October 1912, Page 4

ARBITRATION LAW

DISCUSSION AT BUILDERS' CONFERENCE.

CONSTITUTION OF THE COURT. (Bj Tclcirrapli.—Press Association.! Dunedin, Octoljer 30. At the Builders' Conference this morning, there was a lengthy discussion on a remit from Canterbury dealing with the question of the Arbitration Court. The remit asked the conference to reaffirm a resolution passed at the previous conference in Auckland:—"That we approve of tho continuance of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and support tho retention of a legal gentleman as president, but approve of the alteration of the Court by either adding two expert advisers or by doing away with the present representatives, and electing two expert representatives l'or each trade; also that we- favour the Act .being amended so as to allow of awards being extended to a term of five years; further, that the whole matter be relegated to the executive for consideration, in order that the result of the deliberations may bo fully set out for the information ot affiliated associations before being presented to tho Government." The necessity for bringing down the motion arose from the fact that the executive had, after the last confcrence, completely changed its views and settled in favour of the present constitution of the Court. Mr. U. Pearce, in. moving the reaffirmation, said it would be better if awards were made up to five years, because it would give more quietness and excludo the paid agitator. As for the constitution of the Court, the judge might bo left as chairman, though ho thought it would be better to have a sound business man in the position, with the representatives of each side associated with him, who knew by practical experience the nature of tho dispute going forward. At each place where the Court sat representatives would be appointed locally, and would have a better idea of the conditions and be able to make awards more satisfactory to both sides. As long as tho Court was constituted as at present, there would be dissatisfaction, though nobody could question the impartiality of the chairman. He held that since some alterations wero inevitable, the conference should lav their views before tho Ministry, and Canterbury had sent on this remit to obtain a full discussion. ... . Mr. J. 11. Maynard (Canterbury) seconded. ~ „ ~ • Mr. S. J. Clarke (Auckland) said the important part of the resolution was that there should be two representatives from each trade, and this was a point that had not been considered. It would be construed to mean that each section of eacu Trade should liavo two representatives, and then each section would be endeavouring to get tho best terms for itself. He believed the president of the Arbitration Court had shown himself remarkably well adapted for his work, though ho believed certain decisions had not been fair to the employees of their trade. Mr. H. Mainland (Wellington) expressed the emphatic opinion that a first-class Judge was tho proper head of the Court. Mr. \y. Farquharson moved as an amendment: "That we approve of the continuance of, the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and support the retention of a le?al gentleman as the president; that we favour the Act being amended to allow of awards being extended to a term of five years; also, that the whole matter be relegated to the executive foi consideration." Mr. Small (Auckland) expressed the opinion that the Court as at present constituted had earned the confidence of the majority of employers and employees. Mr. Mainland (Wellington) said tho conference's endorsement of tho Arbitration Court would guide and help the union; which at present were on tho balance, sc that they would como back under the Arbitration Court. Mr. Grenfell (secretary) said they did not want experts on jrade questions or the Court, but they rather required experts ii) the framing 'ol awards. The best way to introduce expert advice to the Court was through the witness-box. _ Em ployers' rights were already being whittled away by tho multiplicity of experts engaged in conciliation matteTs._ The amendment was carried by a large majority. , Mr. Clarke (Auckland) moved: "Thai the conference consider what steps should bo taken to prevent the granting by Parliament to any branch or section of th< building trade any special privilege 01 protection which is not given in full measure of equality to members of the federation. He pointed out that the Plumbers Registration Bill, if carried in its pre sent form, would inako it a criminal of fenoo for a master builder or auyono els: to employ n registered, fully-qualifiec journeyman plumber to do sanitary work Mr. Bennett, in supporting the motion said the association was threatened will an unfair restriction being placed on thcil business by sub-contractors. The remit was adopted, and it was further resolved to telegraph to the Ministei in charge of the Bill, stating "That "the annual conference representing approxi inately 800 master builders, desire to speci ally protest against the Plumbers' Hegistration Bill being passed by Parliameni in it§, present form."