FURNITURE WORKERS' REQUESTS

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 72, 21 September 1912, Page 2

FURNITURE WORKERS' REQUESTS

REPLY BY THE PRIME MINISTER. On 2nd September last a deputation from the Wellington Furniture Trades Union preferred a series of requests- to the Hon. W. F. Massey (as Minister of Labour). Mr. Massey'e reply to these has been received by the union, and is considered to be of a very unsatisfactory nature. The Minister 6 reply is as follows :— _ In regard to the deputation's suggestion that agents who are not competent tradesmen should be excluded from all disputes without the, consent of both parties, the Minister said he did not believe it wae the intention, when the amendment of 1908 was passed, that outside agents should -appear as a regular practice in disputes. The provision was probably inserted for the purpose of enabling females and other parties not able to appear for themselves to appear by duly accredited agents. He was going into the question with a view to making an improvement on section 36 of the 1908 amending Act. As for the deputation's request in regard to section 69 of the same Act and the question of awards prevailing over contracts of service in case of conflict, the Minister eaid that careful consideration must be given to the matter in order to see that justice was done to both sides. He would go into it fully as early as possible with this view. He would also go carefully into the deputation's suggestion that workers' compensation insurance should be made compulsory on all employers, but the union would no doubt recognise that this would be a somewhat extreme step to take. In reference to the suggestion that no company should be allowed to compromise a claim, the Minister pointed out that provision was made in. the Act that in claims for the payment t>f compensation, in the case of death or permanent injury, any agreement for settlement of compensation must be made with the approval of a Magistrate or of an inspector of factories before it was binding. So far as the Department was aware no agreements had been made without such sanction. Regarding the remarks concerning the action of the Arbitration Court in making some varying provisions in the awards in the furniture trade, Mr. Maseey said it was not competent for him to review the Court's decisions, but he thought that there had been some misunderstanding on the part of the union. < The union had said that all awards in the trade were the results of agreements, but the memorandum attached to the Wellington award stated that it was based on the recommendation of the Conciliation Council, not on the agreement of the whole of the parties. If it was the desire of the furniture workers to obtain uniformity in their awards, it would appear necessary to make application, under the lflll amendment of the Act, for an award covering the several industrial districts.