GENERAL LABOURERS’ AWARD

Dominion, Volume 32, Issue 257, 28 July 1939, Page 11

GENERAL LABOURERS’ AWARD

Rehearing By Arbitration Court Sought UNION’S DEPUTATION TO MINISTER Several questions arising from the recent builders’ and general labourers’ award on which it was suggested that a committee or commission to investigate and report should be set up were placed before the Minister of Justice, Mr. Mason, by a deputation from the national council of the New Zealand Labourers’ Federation, which waited upon him yesterday. The deputation, which was introduced by Mr. F. D. Cornwell, secretary of the New Zealand Federation of Labour, comprised: The president of the Labourers’ Federation, Mr. L. Glover;’ the secretary. Mr. P. M. Butler; Mr. T. Stanley, Auckland; Mr. C. E. Bickford. Poverty Bay. There were two questions of vital importance which the deputation wished to discuss, said Mr. Butler. These were, first, the basis on which the Court of Arbitration niade awards, and, second, the apparent impunity with which sections of the Press and others could'comment prejudicially on matters before the Court. Mr. Butler claimed that the Court was issuing awards without regard to the weight of evidence submitted and which he contended clearly indicated that insufficient or careless attention was given to matters placed before it for decision. The Court had tremendous power, and there was no appeal from it. Sifting The Evidence. “We have come here to deal particularly with our own award,” said Mr. Butler. “We are not coming along here to squeal and get a decision from another referee. We say that the Court should sift all the evidence placed before it. If the case had been dealt with in the usual manner, then the decision would have been very different from what it was.” The Court had indicated, he said, that it wanted Dominion awards. The national organization of carpenters and the labourers’ organization, in deference to the expressed wish of the Court, had their cases heard conjointly, as they wanted similar conditions of employment for workers in the one industry. They thought that the Court would have seized this opportunity of making the conditions on the job at least uniform. The labourers’ award was issued a few days before the carpenters’ award, and there were great points of variance. The labourer working in certain places, the Court had laid it down, should get a certain amount. The carpenter working on the same job was treated differently. The Court, they thought, had not given proper care and attention to the position. Mr. Butler complained about the effect of “umbrella” decisions and alleged that when a structural engineer employed by a local body gave evidence for the union on the question of skilled and unskilled work, the Master Builders’ Association of Wellington had written to the man’s employers protesting against his having given evidence. Specific Requests. The specific requests of the deputation were outlined by Mr. Butler as follows: — (1) That a committee or commission be set up to investigate and report on the matters raised. (2) That if the Minister were satisfied with, the justice of the submissions he recommend to Cabinet the introduction df legislation for the cancellation of the present labourers’ award and for a rehearing. (3) That the Minister take action against the newspapers which, in the deputation’s opinion, commented prejudicially upon its case while it was still sub judice. (4) That the Minister investigate the complaint of the intimidation of one witness with a view to taking the necessary action against the Master Builders’ Association. (5) That the Arbitration Court be advised that in making awards it shall observe the Act respecting its jurisdiction, and that it shall deal with all matters placed before it in accordance with the merits of the evidence submitted. Mr. Glover associated himself with Mr. Butler’s remarks.

The Minister indicated that the points raised would be looked into.