INDUSTRIAL LAW

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 41, 12 November 1937, Page 12

INDUSTRIAL LAW

Proposal To Relieve Work Of Court

MEMBERS’ VIEWS Effect Of New Legislation On Rural Industries The debate on the committal of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2) was continued in the House of Representatives yesterday. Urgency was taken for all stages of the measure. The first speaker was Mr. A. C. A. Sexton (Independent, Franklin) “This legislation will bring the dairyfarmer with a small Hock of sheep directly under the Arbitration Court,” he said, lie contended that the clause in the Bill modifying the procedure for the citation of employers would operate in a particularly objectionable manner so’far as the small rural industries were concerned. More and more dairyfarmers in the Auckland and Waikato districts were reducing the size of their herds on account of the difficulty in obtaining farm labour and replacing them with small flocks of breeding ewes. These men were not brought under the Arbitration Court in respect to their principal occupation of dairying, being subject to another set of conditions altogether. Under this Bill they would be subject to the provisions of the Arbitration Court. Co-operative Shearing. These small dairy-farmers with small flocks, said Mr. Sexton, would find they were subject to all the terms of the shearers’ award. It would also be interesting to hear from the Minister of Labour, Hon. H. T. Armstrong, concerning the position of small farmers who did their shearing on a cooperative basis. If a farm hand assisted with the crutehing of a small flock of sheep, would he first have to join the New Zealand Workers’ Union and then be paid the rates of pay prescribed by the shearers’ awards? Similarly in a case where a farmer assisted his neighbour on a co-operative basis, would he be obliged to join the union? A large number of men throughout the Auckland province were going to be affected by the Bill. “I think some attempt should be made to meet the position by exempting men with flocks of not more than 600 or 700 ewes,” added Mr. .Sexton. “There is going to bo the strongest objection to that section of the Bill bringing the small dairy-farmer with sheep within the scope of the Arbitration Court.”

The necessity for expediting the hearing of cases by the Arbitration Court was also emphasised by Mr. Sexton. At one time, he said, the court reckoned on sitting in the main centres at least once a quarter. Conditions had now become so bad that it could not visit some of the larger cities even in two years. “To have the administration of justice held up like that is disastrous. It is not fair to the litigants, nor is it fair to the court itself.”

The intricate nature of industrial law was referred to by Mr. Sexton. This law, he said, had now got to such a stage that it was almost necessary for large firms to have a staff to keep them advised concerning the scope of awards and industrial agreements. Accumulation of Cases.

The accumulation of cases before the Arbitration Court recently had had the effect of negativing to a great extent the benefits of the arbitration system, said Mr. C. H. Chapman (Government, Wellington North). The system had been checked during the last four years in office of the previous Government, but the present Government had made it possible for unions again to submit cases to the court.

Mr. Chapman outlined three factors which he said had made for the present delay. First, the long period during which unions had been prevented from approaching the court: secondly, the change in Government and recent legislation, which had encouraged unions to approach the court, because the Government stood for orderly progress and for arbitration and not direct action in the settlement of disputes; thirdly, the restoration of prosperity and the provision of much more employment, accompanied by an increased cost of living, which had made increased wages imperative and the court had heen approached in many instances to give these increases. The delay in the settlement of disputes was embarrassing to employers, and causing heavy losses to workers. He cited one case with which he bad been connected. Conciliation council proceedings had taken place last April and it seemed that it would be next April before the case got to the pourt. The position had reached a stage which entirely justified the introduction of legislation which would oil the wheels of the court and enable it to overcome the accumulation of work. Precedent and equity guided the court in giving decisions and he anticipated that there would be no difficulty in the establishment of a second court The Bill should smooth the way and give the arbitration system a better chance to operate. Freezing Workers’ Strike. The statement by Mr. Chapman that the Government stood for orderly progress and for arbitration and not direct action in the settlement of disputes was challenged by Mr. W. A. Bodkin (Opposition, Central Otago). He cited the Government’s attitude in the recent freezing workers’ stay-in strike at Auckland, when the employers were denied police assistance in recovering possession of their property, and asked whether that was a sample of the Government’s “orderly progress.” Mr. Bodkin said that there was evidence that the Government had supported an influential trade union when it had adopted a policy contrary to the arbitration law and the spirit of the legislation. There was a ease also of workers reft’ 'ng to go to the Arbitration Court f / an award, notwithstanding tlie n i.-Jies of the employers, the men preferring to lake the line of direct action.

Just recently there Was a striking illustration of a very powerful ‘union that went to tlie court and secured an award which it immediately, repudiated. The Government hail undoubtedly given it both direct ami moral support. Mr. W. T. Anderton (Government. Eden): What union? Mr. Bodkin: The slaughtermen's Union. A resolution passed at a meeting ’of the workers and employers, at which the Minister of Labour, Hon. 11. T. Armstrong, presided, clearly indicates that the Minister and the Government were parties to the repudiation of the award.

“That was not a case of the Government standing for orderly methods and arbitration,” continued Mr. Bod-

kin. “It was direct support, and the member for Waitemata (Mr. W. J. Lyon) took, I believe, an active part in the negotiation and urged the men to return to work and observe the law, probably hoping that the Government would be able to bring pressure on the employers to effect a compromise. Certainly the Government did not stand four-square behind the award.” Police Assistance Refused. Mr. Bodkin said that it was an unusual strike, a stay-in strike, and the men were in possession of the property of the employers. They were trespassers within the law. The employers used every effort possible to get possession and they were contemplating force. They were within their rights in calling upon the police forcibly to eject the strikers. What reply did they receive? "We find this statement which has never been contradicted, and which received the greatest possible publicity at the time: ‘We got in touch with the police last evening and asked them to remove the men forcibly from the works, but Superintendent Till advised us that instructions had been received from Wellington that they were not to interfere.’ ” Mr. Anderton: Quite sensible. Mr. Bodkin: Is that standing for orderly methods? Surely one of the fundamental principles of Government is to give protection both to- the person and the property of individuals. Here we have the property of individuals that has been forcibly taken possession of and police assistance in recovering possession is refused. In other words the Government, so far as this incident is concerned, simply ceased to function as" a Government at all. It denied these employers police protection for their property. Definite and absolute, instructions were given that the police were not to interfere.

"Can the bon. gentleman suggest that that is maintaining law and orderly government?” asked Mr. Bodkin. “It is a complete repudiation of the award and everything that the court stood for. The whole principle that permeates the larger and more influential trade unions in New Zealand is definitely one of force.” Employers Blamed. Employers as a class were blamed for the present: hold-up in the work of the Arbitration Court by Mr. W. J. Lyon (Government, Waitemata). He referred to the methods adopted by the Minister of Labour in settling the Auckland freezing workers dispute last year. The Minister’s actions had been criticised by the Opposition, he said, but they had only told half the story. Owing to the fact that the rush of work had resulted in a hurried hearing of the dispute in the first case, an award had been made which was unjust to one section of the workers. Freezing workers were employed under the most revolting and disgusting conditions which could possibly be applied to human labour, and it bad previously been laid down that they were entitled to preferential treatment with regard to wages. That point had been overlooked in the making of the award and, as there could be no ' appeal against the award, the men went on strike. It was their only method of overcoming what, was apparently an error of judgment on'the part of the court. The men had a legitimate grievance; even the employers admitted that. ~ , Mr. J. A. Roy (Opposition, Clutlui) : Did that justify them in occupying the works? ' , Mr. Lyon §aid that while the men, occupied the works they kept them cleaner and in better order than nad ever been the case previously. Opposition members had asked why they were not ejected by the police. Ihe Opposition would have welcomed an order for the police to go into the works and would probably have welcomed au incitement of the workers to fight back. It was attempting to capitalise industrial misunderstandings. , “The claims of the men were admitted to be just,” said Mr. Lyon, “but the employers could not agree to them because they would have involved all other employers in the Dominion. That was why they asked for a direction from the Minister that the claims should be met and the dispute settled.” Position of Racing Clubs.

An assurance that the provision m the Bill bringing racing and .similar clubs within the scope of the arbitration law would not interfere with any of those clubs that were playing the game by the workers was given by tlie Minister of Mines, Hon. P. C. Webb. His statement was made in reply to the Hou. J. G. Co-bbe (Opposition, Oroua), who had said that clubs such as that were not being carried on for pecuniary gain of. individuals, and be could see no reason why the scope ot the legislation should be extended iw include them. Persons employed m clubs were particularly well paid, and it was not likely that they would gam anything through that clause o£ the Biil. in his opinion, Hie Minister of Labour would be well advised Io drop that provision. . “The racing clubs are quite satisfied with this clause,” said Mr. Webb, “and I would like to assure Mr. Cobbe tbat there is no real cause for alaiin. Yesterday, in the absence of Mr. Armstrong, I discussed this matter with representatives of the Labour Department as well as members of the Racing Conference and the Wellington Racing Club and the Bill was outlined to them. They were quite satisfied because they know it will not interfere witli <inj club that is playing the game by the workers.” ’ Mr. Cobbe: Do you know of any club that is not playing the game? Mr.- Webb: No. and the racing men did not know of any either.“Clubs Well Pleased.” The Minister said it had been pointed out by the racing representatives that the rates paid to casual workers by clubs were very much higher than casual rates paid by any other organisations. There might have been a number of men employed by some of the big racing clubs who had not received the hours they were entitled to, but the whole question had been thoroughly discussed and agreement with the proposals in the Bill had been expressed. The representatives of the Racing Conference had been concerned lest the clause would prevent them from securing skilled men tor work in the totalisator, but when they had been assured that that would not be the case they had been quite satisfied. The clubs were well pleased with the Bill, because they were among the very fewpaying more than standard wages. ’ Industrial Peace. The opinion that delays in Hie transaction of business by the Arbitration Court were not conducive to industrial peace was expressed by Mr. D. W. Coleman (Government, Gisborne). These delays, he said, encouraged the idea pl’ direct action. ’ "I believe that this Bill will be welcomed by employers and workers alike,” said Mr. Coleman. “It is generally admitted that the Arbitration Court is a long way behind with its work, and that the only way that this congestion can be overcome is by proposals such as those contained in this Bill. We believe that arbitration and conciliation is the best way of preserv

ing industrial peace, but we cannot expect to maintain that state of affairs if the court is months and months behind with its work. Delays like that encourage the idea of militancy and direct action. That should not be. We should not allow a position to develop which encourages unions with the idea that the only way they can obtain redress and get the court to deal with their cases is by taking unconstitutional action.” A woeful lack of efficiency in almost ev'erv industry in New Zealand was alleged by Mr. W. I*. Endean (Opposition, Parnell), who said that go-slow tactics ami a philosophy of “do as little as possible and get as much as you can” seemed to permeate the whole of the administration of the labour laws in New Zealand. Just because they thought the court bad erred and that they should have received an extra three pence an hqur, the freezing workers in Auckland had taken the law into their own hands and had refused to vacate the premises until their demands had been met. That was a most extraordinary procedure for a free democratic country like New Zealand. It was no wonder New Zealand found it difficult to compete with foreign countries.

Compensation Cases.

A suggestion that the judge of the Court of Arbitration. Mr. Justice O’Regan, should preside over a court to deal solely with workers’ compensation cases, on which he was an acknowledged authority, was made by Mr. S..G. Smith (Opposition, New Plymouth). “1 welcome the clause providing for the appointment of a second court/’ Mr. Smith said, “and 1 would ask the Minister of Labour to let the second court deal solely with compensation eases. I doubt whether there is a greater authority on workers’ compensation than the present judge of the Arbitration Court, and I think the Minister should appoint him to preside over the compensation court.”

“There are men on the Government benches who, a few years ago, were leaders of the strike movement, Mr. Smith said, “but now, as soon as there is a strike in a public works camp or somewhere, the men are tom by the former strike leaders that they must go back to work at once.

Mr Smith referred to the freezing workers’ strike at Auckland last year, and quoted Mr. W. J. Lyon (Government. Waitemata) as having asked why the Minister of Labour should not intervene if the two sides could not agree. The Court of Arbitration existed for the purpose of .hearing evidence from both sides and then makiu-' a decision, but in that case the Minister had taken the right to step in and say what should be done. Interference by Ministers with judges of the* court should be handled with the greatest care—a fact which the Minister of Labour had probably learned for himself.

Question of Appeals.

“I hope nothing will be done to make judgments of the Arbitration Court involving appeals from decisions of magistrates retrospective,” said Mr. H. G. Dickie (Opposition, Patea). He took it that there would be a good many appeals from decisions of magistrates. In the past the custom had been to make awards retrospective. He hoped nothing of the kind would be done in cases where there was an appeal from a magistrate, and that the magistrate's decision would hold good until such time as it had been disturbed. Some years ago a dispute had taken place in the freezing industry over the chain system. That strike was during the currency of an award, and the men had returned to work on condition that the question in dispute was referred to the Arbitration Court. Trivial increases were granted by the court some months later, but they were made retrospective. That had necessitated a great deal of work on the part of a small company with which he was associated. All the accounts had to be gone through and extra clerks had to be engaged to do the work. “I hope in future,” said Mr. Dickie, “that awards will be strictly observed by both the employers and the workers. The stay-in strike in Auckland was an illegal strike and yet the men got away with it. Such a state of affairs is most disturbing to employers of labour.” Minister’s Reply. The proposal in the Bill providing for the citation of employers’ organisations instead of all individual employers was defended by Mr. Armstrong,- in replying to the debate. He said that workers were cited by the citation of Hie organisation representing their interests, and the same principle was going to bp followed in the ease of the employers.

“The member for New Plymouth, Mr. S. G. Smith, asked if it would be possible for magistrates to visit the secondary towns,” said the Minister. “I think that is a very good suggestion. It is obviously better for magistrates to visit these secondary towns instead of bringing all the witnesses and other parties to the case into the cities.” The Minister said he realised the danger of a conflict of views between the two Arbitration Courts. He had tried to avoid the appointment of a second court, but it could not be done any longer. In the Magistrate’s Court and Ihe Supreme Court decisions were not always given according to the t/me measuring rod. A second court would not have been set up if one had been capable of coping with the work.

Tlie Minister said that there were 302 cases of award and compensation proceedings awaiting the attention of the court. In Auckland alone there were now 47 award Cases awaiting the consideration of the court aiid 24 compensation cases. In Wellington there were 44 award cases and 59 compensation cases. He imagined that tlie Christchurch figures were pretty well equal to those for Wellington. Tn Dunedin there were 21 award cases and nine compensation cases. Dealing with the suggestion made by Mr. S. G. Holland (Opposition, Christchurch North) that the court might delegate all its powers to industrial magistrates, Mr. Armstrong said that he was inclined to think that the court would be very jealous of delegating its powers. But surely if it was found necessary the court to hand on those powers in isolated districts to magistrates it should not be denied that right. There was the right of appeal, in any ease, to the court.

How Freezing Strike was Settled

“I did not want to butt in to that dispute, but my telephone never stopped ringing day or night, with appeals from all sorts of people, including the employers, to go up to Auckland to deal with the dispute,” said Mr. Armstrong when replying to references made to his intervention in Hie Auckland freezing workers’ strike. “Those telephone messages all said, ‘You are the man to settle the dispute,’” added Mr. Armstrong. “At last Cabinet decided that I must go. There were scores and scores of telegraphed appeals to me to go to Auckland and in every case those appeals came from the employers.” The Minister read several of the telegrams, the majority of which, he said, came from dairy factory employers and proprietors en-

treating him to secure an immediate settlement. He also read several resolutions in the same vein from dairy companies. “I went to four different freezing works in one day,” the Minister said. “I met hostile crowds of people definitely opposed to my suggestions. I directed them to come out of the works that day and they did so. Was that the wrong thing to do? We came to the point where I told them that it was a case of whether they were to govern the country or us. They camo out. I also directed them that they were to start work on the Monday morning. They did so. Was that wrong of me to give them that direction? I- see that there is a silence on the other side of the House. I am egotistical enough to believe ” Mr. Smith: You have a,great idea of yourself. Mr. Armstrong: Sure I have. And we succeeded there, .But. is it not a fact that every Minister of Labour lias had to do the same? The work I did then was much appreciated by the industry and by the farmers of the Auckland province. A denial that farmers who are not at present bound by awards would be brought under award provisions by the Bill was made by the Minister. He said that the member for Franklin had suggested that many more farmers would be brought under the scope of the awards. “There is nothing in the Bill which will bring dairy-farmers under the legislation who are not under it to-day,” Mr. Armstrong said. “The Bill will give mixed farmers some representation, and I must say that such provision is made in the Bill at the request of the farmers’ unions. But there is no one who has not been . bound in the past who is now bound by this Bill.”

Proceedings in Committee.

Speaking on the committee stage of the Bill, the Leader of the Opposition, Hou. Adam Hamilton, said that so far as the freezing workers’ dispute was concerned, the Minister had answered every point except the one at issue, and that was that he had assumed responsibility for something which Parliament had not given him power to do. In other words, he had overridden his own law.

The appointment of the nominated members to the second Arbitration Court on the recommendation of the federations of workers and employers concerned instead of by nomination of the Minister was advocated in an amendment moved by Mr. Smith. The amendment was lost on the voices. Mr. Sexton moved an amendment to exempt small mixed farmers with fewer than 500 ewes from the provisions of the shearers’ award. “The object of the amendment,” he said, “is to avoid the irksome restrictions which awards inevitably bring in their train. The rate of pay prescribed is a relatively small matter. It is the conditions that will cause complications for the small farmer.” The_ amendment was lost by 35 votes to 15. An amendment by the Leader of the Opposition to insert a new clause to provide that nothing in the Bill relating to the delegation of certain of the court’s functions should empower it to delegate its functions in respect of the hearing of disputes or the making of awards was rejected on a division by 36 votes to 15.

Tlie Bill was read a third time without amendment and passed