ARBITRATION PITFALLS

Evening Star, Issue 22343, 20 May 1936, Page 7

ARBITRATION PITFALLS

AN AMENDMENT TO DILL " PLUTOCRACY OF OFFICIALDOM '» FEARED [From Our Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, May 19. It is the intention of the Government to amend the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill in the direction of removing restriction of the application of awards and industrial agreements in cases where work is not carried on for the pecuniary gain of the employer. The Bill, as passed by the House, provided that no award or industrial agreement should affect the employment of any worker who was employed by a charitable or religious organisation in any industry that was carried on by it otherwise than for pocuniai'y gain. It also stated that the fact that any work was not carried on for the pecuniary gain of the employer should not restrict the application of any award or industrial agreement. Speaking on the motion to commit the Bill in the Legislative Council yesterday, the Leader, Mr Fagan, said "that when the Bill was in committee he intended to move that the clause should be deleted. “I had im-doubts in connection with this elause,” he said, “and I have consulted with the Governnient and the Minister in charge of the Bill, and I propose to move that the clause be struck out when the Bill is in committee.” (Hear, hear.)

Mr Fhgan pointed out that, in the first place, the clause referred to charitable or religious organisations, whereas there were many charitable institutions (not religious) that woiild not be covered by the clause. Further, employment might be given to an unemployed man or returned soldier, and under the clause it would be necessary for the employer to secure an under-rate workers’ permit from the Arbitration Court. There had also been much misapprehension, particularly in the House of Representatives, as to the effect of the clause as far as private houses were concerned in the event of a Domestic Servants’ Union being registered and officers of the union calling at a home and being generally , annoying. Mr Fagan added that section 154 of the principal Act still afforded protection to charitable and religious organisations.. Fear that the Bill might be inimical to those whom it was designed to help was expressed by Mr M'Cullough. He said that he was not wholly sympathetic with every clause in the Bill, yet he believed that it was in the best interests of the workers. He was not at all satisfied that the Bill had not rebounded too fast and too far. “ I can see a danger that successful attempts may bo made by powerful institutions to register unions that will operate in the interests of those institutions, and I can also see a danger that compulsory unionism.may lead to the enthroning or a powerful plutocracy of officialdom that may be tempted to put its own comfort* and the emoluments of office before the ■interests of persons belonging to the organisation, whom the officials were elected to serve; but time, I hope, may prevent my fears being realised. lam keenlv anxious to prevent a condition of affairs arising in this country where our union officials will bo ■ the friends and companions of stockbrokers and banking magnates; or that we will ever have a trades union official being offered a reward of £25,000 to write bis autobiography. But there is. this danger.