LABOUR NOTES.

Evening Post, Volume LXXIX, Issue 118, 21 May 1910, Page 12

LABOUR NOTES.

AEBITEATION COURT OR PARLIAMENT? (By TJnienlst.) Which shall be supreme —the Arbitration Court or the Legislature? The question is again prominently before : do trade unionists of the Dominion. It is practically a revival of the old i query, "Has the Arbitration Court full | power to override Statute law?" That question has exercised the minds of unionists for three or four years past. It has never been put to a strict legal test. Rather than spend money in the law courts, trade unions have sought amendment to the Arbitration Act, so as definitely to ensure that there shai' be no further conflict between the awards and the various Labovtr laws. Many leading union officials, however, still hold that were a test case taken, the final judgment would uphold the Statute law and invalidate any award provision contrary to the same. _ In most of our Labour laws it is provided that those sections which deal specially with the "hours of labour" shall be subject to any award of the Arbitration Court. It is that proviso which has caused all the trouble, and has led to the repeated question as to the power of the court. Old union members say that the proviso was inserted in the i several Labour measures so as expressly to permit of the court awarding lesser hours than the maximum specified in those Acts. Parliament never intended, j they argue, that the proviso should be sc construed as to give power to the court to grant hours of labour in excess of the number already declared by vote of members to be a fair maxim<im. Whatever the intention of the Legislature, the court in several awards, and much to 1b.3 chagrin of the workers concerned, has, since the passing of t.ue Labour laws in question, imposed hours in excess of those defined by Parliament. As stated, trade unionists begun to be concerned about the court's attitude on the matter rome four years ago. At the 1907 Labour Conference delegates unanimously declared for l^avhamrnt against the Arbitration Court, «,nd urged the curtailing of the court's powers, by amendment to .the Arbitration Act in the following direction :—: — '"That it be not within the power of the court, when making an award, to prescribe in such an award hours of labour for any class of workers in any industry in excess of tho hours prescribed by Acts of Parliament for workers in that industry. Neither shall the court have power to make any provision in its awards which will deprive tho workers coming under the scope of those awards of any holidays or other privileges which are already granted to those workers by Act of rmliament." To subsequent conference deputations Mr. Millar, Minister for Labour, gave j sympathetic replies, and when the Act ! was amended (in 1908) in keeping with his promise, a clause, intended to give eftcct to conference" w-presentatioi.s, was embodied in tha Act. It is contained in section 74 of the Act, and reads :—: — "1. The provisions of an award or industrial agreement shall continue in force until the expiration of the period for which it was made, notwithstanding that before such expiration any provision inconsistent with the award or industrial agreement is made by any Act passed after the commencement of this Act unless in that Act the contrary is expressly provided. 2. On the expiration of th« said period the award," or industrial agreement, shall during its further subsistence be deemed to bo modified in accordance with the law then, in force." Does the section alone quoted giv* ef feet to the conference representations? Without exception, union officials give Mr. Millar full credit for showing, by the insertion of section 74 in the amended Act to assert, once and for all, tho supremacy of Parliament over the Arbitration Court of any other legislatively-created tribunal. But has the Crown Law draughtsman covered all the loopholes? Has not the Arbitration Court still power to impose, say, a 65-hour-week for a certain class of shop assistants, who if governed by the fcihops and Offices Act alone, could only be compelled to work 52 hours per week? Whatever the hi ■tention of Mr. Millar and of Parliament in connection with this clause, it is also feared in Labour circles, that a final judgment would go to prove that Section 74 had "missed the mark" so far as ifc alone seeks to prevent the Arbitration Court's usurpation of 'the right to override existing legislation. The Arbitration Court is going even further than the mere increasing of statute hours nowadays. Witness the statement of t]je president, and the subsequent award in the Rotorua Boardinghouse dispute, heard some weeks ago. Mr. Ling, for the uniou, endeavoured to assert_ the right of workers to use all means available tor redress of grievances. Mr. Justice Sim expressed the opinion "that the union should trust either to the Legislature or the court." In the award afterwards made in connection with the case, the following court's clause was inserted : — The provisions of this award shall remain in force until any change is made by legislation in any of the conditions fixed by this award. On any such change being made all 'the foregoing provisions of this award shall cease to operate, and thereafter during the term of this award the following provisions shall be in force: —Subject to any legislative provisions on the subject, the hours of work, wages, and other conditions of work of all workers coming within the scope of this award shall be fixed by agreement between each employer and the individual workers employed by him. The clause is full of significance. It has the backing of the Employers' Federation, who advke its incorporation, in all future awards. From the workers' point of view it looks as those favouring the clause and the court's practice of increasing staute hours are "riding for a fall." The Minister of Labour is very emphatic on the subject. Already he has declared: —"The Arbitration Court is never going to be granted power to override what the high court of Parliament has done. Parliament fixes the laws, and no court can override statute law." At Ashburton Mr. Day, S.M., vu a recent industrial case, also forcefully commented on the powers of the Arbitration Court. Said Mr. Day, "I cannot conceive that it was ever the intention of tho Legislature to create a court with power to disregard or override statute law." The whole question is of vital importance to workers. It touches 'the root principle of Government by the people. At the forthcoming Labour Conference it is again down for discussion.

THE MISSING SHIP AUSTRALIAN. A belated Board of Trade enquiry was held al Greenoek early last month into the loss of tho ship Australian, which left Mazatlan in ballast for Sydney on 25th November, 1908, and has not since been hoard of. The enquiry was very short, and inconclusive in the outcome, the assessors being unable to account for tho ship's disappearance, except on tho assumption that f-ho might have boon stranded on a reef or may havo been run down in a collision. Tho amount of tho insurances was £12,000 on tho ship, £3500 on protective freight, and £2000 on dieburscmsmu, making a. total of £17,500.