ARBITRATION PROPOSALS

Evening Star, Issue 19709, 9 November 1927, Page 11

ARBITRATION PROPOSALS

EVIDEHGE BEFORE LABOR BILLS COMMITTEE DAIRY FARMERS OPPOSE UNIONISM [Pee United Press Association.! ■WELLINGTON, November 8. Before tho Labor Bills Committee of tho House of Representatives to-day further evidence was given in connection with tho Industrial and Conciliation Arbitration Amendment Bill. Air T. O. Bishop, representing the Employers’ Federation, , made a statement regarding telegrams which had been exchanged between the Hon. G. J. Anderson (Alinister of Labor) and Air C. W. Wood (president of the South Canterbury Employers’ Association), in which tho latter indicates that the Employers’ Federation is not undivided in its attitude to tho Bill. Air Bishop went on to say that ho wished to make it clear that lie had not said in his evidence that ho represented every employer in Now Zealand or that tho resolutions put boforo the committee were unanimous, in his evidence he had expressed the considered opinion of tho Employers’ Federation, and Air Wood’s dissent did not alter the views of the federation. Mr Wood’s telegram was not sent in the spirit it should have been sent.

To Air J. Linklater, the witness said that some of the dairy employers were members of tho Employers’ Federation, but he had never attempted to say that he was expressing the views of tho dairy factory employers. Air J. C. Eliott, member for Oroua, on behalf of the farming community, gave evidence, urging the abolition of tho preference to unionists clause, and said that when tho Bill was in the House he would move a clause to abolish it as far as it affected tho farming interests. It had been said that he was moving the clause at the instigation of tho Alinister, but he had asked the Alinister if ho would adopt the clause, and the Alinister had said he would leave it to the committee. In a dispute, if the employers objected to the preference clause, the court should not have tho power to include it. It appeared to him that the Employers’ Federation was composed chiefly of manufacturers and merchants, and was ranged with Labor for the purpose of defeating the aspirations and objects of tho farmers. Air James G. Brechin, accountant and dairy fanner, of Rahiatua, opposed an extension of tho operations of the Arbitration Court to the dairy farming industry, which included 4,800 farmers, not counting tho 8,900 under the Goodfcllow companies. Ho cited a resolution to this effect froin Rotorua by the National I)?my Association. The witness reviewed the conditions leading up to tin’s decision. Awards, lie said, were absolutely detrimental to efficiency, and tho former cordial relations between employer and employee had disappeaered. Anything which destroyed co-operation must be condemned, even if its introduction had been beneficial to certain parties, if it inflicted loss on all parties by lack of co-operation. The failure of unionism was shown by the fact that after years of experience the directors of the dairy companies and tho farmers themselves were making an effort to remove the evil of unionism from tho industry. in reply to a suggestion by Air E. J. Howard that he was an agitator, the witness replied: “No, 1 am proud to say that .1 am not an agitator nor a member of Parliament.” Al r Howard: You are opposed to trade unionism?—ln every shape or form.

You are the paid secretary of six factories. What is tho between you and tho secretary of a union? —1 helievp 1 get paid, but the secretary of a; union is a militant agitator, and I am not.

Would you be insulted if I called you an agitator?—l do not think 1 would take it as an insult from you.

To Air Howard, witness said that efficiency had not increased under awards. Ho represented six factories, none of which had experienced unionism for more than a few months, yet the cost of production had decreased, so that unionism had had little to do with it. The real reason of the reduced cost of production was in the reduced cost of tho material.

Mr A. S. Broadfolt (chairman of tho Levin Dairy Company) asked for tho exemption of tho dairy industry from tho Act.

Mr E. Halo, of Woodvillo, dairy farmer, and chairman of the Hopeland Dairy Company, said that the relationship with the men was good until last season, when tho men were told that if they wanted to hold their jobs they would have to join the union. The old spirit was now a tiling of the past, and efficiency had been broken down owing to the award. Tho dairy industry should he kept out of the Arbitration Act. He was absolutely against preference to unionists.

Mr G. D. Kearney (manager of the North Tiraumea Dairy Factory) said that since tho award the staff had told him on ono occasion that they would ■take instructions from tho union secretary, and not from himself. Before that ho had no trouble with tho men. Now they had lost interest in everything except tho hours worked, and they were discourteous to suppliers. Mr A. W. Gray (first assistant at the Hopeland Dairy Factory) endorsed the previous evidence. He agreed that the men under tho award were not as efficient as formerly.

Mr W. Richmond, of Hastings, meat exporter and sheep fanner, said tho freezing branch should be included in tho exemptions. Farmers’ building costs had increased through union awards. By making his own arrangements with an efficient carpenter lie had built a shed for £92, paying award rates, when it would have cost by contract £l5O.