NOTHING TO FEAR IN NEW LEGISLATION

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 256, 25 July 1936, Page 14

NOTHING TO FEAR IN NEW LEGISLATION

Solicitor’s Comments on Industrial Outlook

Keen interest jn definite or possible effects of the new industrial legislation drew more than 140 members of the Wellington branch of the New Zealand Society of Accountants to hear a recent address by Mr. A. J. Mazengarb. “I do not intend to criticise or express any political opinions on the legislation,” he said. “Were I tempted to do so I do not think I could do better than to adopt the words of the Prime Minister on election night: ‘You have nothing to fear.’ When you conl’e to consider the effect of the legislation, I think that having regard to the majority enjoyed by the Government, the most outstanding feature of t'he legislation is its moderation. ... If I may venture a prophecy, it is that 42 years on, in 1978, we will look hack just as calmly at the legislation of 1936 as we now do at tihat of 1891. “The basic wage is not a new principle. It is merely an extension of the minimum wage provision which is contained in almost all awards. The standard adopted in the New Zealand Act Is approximately the same as that adopted by Mr. Justice Higgins in Melbourne in 1907—a wage for the maintenance of a man, a wife aud three children. The essential difference is that all Australian Acts mentioned the normal or average needs of the worker, while the New Zeatland Act demands a sum sufficient to maintain a family in a reasonable state of comfort.

“I might mention the publicity given to activities of the Clerical Workers’ Union and the attempts to form various guilds. There is the opposition of one section to so-called company unions and the fear on the other hand of being forced willy-nilly into the power of the Trades Hall. I will here venture an opinion, and it is this, that both factions can remain perfectly calm. There is nothing to fear. “On the one hand, there are obvious difficulties in organising a single body which would represent all sections who could be classed as clerical workers. Assuming such a body were formed, it would then be required to create a dispute with all employers in the Dominion. For what employer does not employ at least one clerical worker? Even if a union did get so far as to cite employers iu all industries, various classes of clerical workers or employers would still have their rights under section 106.

“Assume, if you like, that the court, having heard statements of representatives of the clerical staffs of bank officers, oil companies, stock agents, accountants and legal clerks, that they were not truly represented by the union, still made an award binding tdiem, each and every one of these malcontents would have a statutory right to join the union, each and every one would have a vote in the affairs of the union, and they might constitute an

overwhelming majority. The rules of a union can be altered by votes of the members. But. it is my opinion that that position will never arise. The law in this respect has never been altered. Section 152 empowers the court in certain circumstances to refuse to make an award, and will do so when the applicant union does not truly represent the workers sought to be bound by the award.”