UNIONS AND INSPECTORS.

Evening Post, Volume LXXIX, Issue 119, 23 May 1910, Page 6

UNIONS AND INSPECTORS.

Both as Minister of Railways and as Minister of Labour, the Hon. J. A. Millar has no enviable position. In each case he is a buffer between two strong parties. In the matter of the railways there is a solid body of opinion favouring all possible economy and rigid business principles, and there is a large army ever alert for concessions. In the realm of Labour, employers have cried out that their burdens are almost more than they can bear. They complain of harassing restrictions, irritating inspections, and so on, and the workers retort that the Labour Department does not do enough for Labour. On Thursday evening, Mr. D. Moriarty, secretary of the Wellington Furniture-Workers' Union, led a deputation to Mr. Millar. Mr. Moriarty is at present in the forefront of a new movement in Labour circles. He is the spokesman of the "outside" unions, not affiliated to the Trades Councils, and some of the secretaries of these "outsiders" are at variance with the leaders of the Federation movement. Mr. Moriarty made a grave charge against officers of the Labour Department. He complained .that the department had refused to take action against employers even when the union had been able to advance reasonable cause for prosecution. "At present," he said, "the union will not submit any further cases to the department for investigation. It has been forced to take that stand." Mr. Millar pleaded for peace and good-will. He seemed to surrender a point or two to the militant Mr. Moriarty, but generally his attitude was one of caution, and the advocacy of co-operatiou between the union secretaries and the inspectors. Mr. Moriarty has made a charge — departmental partiality towards employers — of which the fairness is disputed by Mr. Millar. The Minister has rightly contended that the .depurtmont .has to b» reasonably sure

of an offence before haling employers to court. The employers' representatives have repeatedly contended that there have been a "policy of pin-pricks." However, Mr. Moriarly's complaints, after allowance is made for possible exaggerations, may do some good. Mr. MDlar has practically admitted that, through some confusion of functions between theLabour Department and th-e Inspection of Machinery Department, the union may have Jiad some just cause for a, grievance or two. Mr. Moriarty's allegations, since they have tbesn made in public, demand some investigation. If the laxity has been as grave as he has pictured it, he can always have lias remedy by making the alleged facts known in the proper quarter. Definite, provable words, not general sweeping assertioliis, constitute the testimony needed to secure any redress that a complainant may merit. Mr. Millar •will be able to valuably employ a few hours in making searching enquiries. The caee must not be allowed to stand at the point where it was left by Mr. Moriarty. We anticipate that there will be some considerable controveiwy before Capital, judging from its present mood, "will admit that it has eecured special Governmental consideration at the cosu of Labour. We refer to Capital in general. We have not the requisite independent evidence at the moment to discuss Capital in particular against Labour in particular, as in the present case of tine furniture-workers' dispute. It is for Mr. Moriarty and his friends to clearly set out their grievances, verso and chapter.