TWO COURTS

Evening Star, Issue 22804, 12 November 1937, Page 7

TWO COURTS

ARBITRATION AMENDMENT PASSES NO CONCESSIONS TO CRITICS [Per United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, November 11. When the House of .Representatives sat this afternoon urgency was granted the passing of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2). Mr Sexton said the legislation would bring the dairy farmer with a small flock of sheep directly under the Arbitration. Court. Modifying the procedure for the citation of employers would operate in a particularly objectionable manner so far as the small rural industries were concerned. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister concerning the position of small farmers who did their shearing on a co-operative basis. If a farm hand assisted with the crutching of a small flock would he first have to join the New Zealand, Workers’ Union and then be paid the rates of pay prescribed by the shearers’ award ? He thought provision should be made to meet the position by exempting men with flocks of not more than 600 or 700 ewes. There waa going to be the strongest objection to that section of the Bill bringing the small dairy farmer with sheep within the scope of the Arbitration Court. Mr Chapman said the benefits of the Arbitration Court had been negatived by the accumulation of work before the court. 'Ho outlined the factors which had led to that accumulation, and stated that there might be some defects in the system requiring two courts, but he was sure they were not insurmountable. ■ The Arbitration Court based its decisions on precedent and equity, and as long as that guiding principle was followed there was no likelihood of confusion from the establishment of two courts.

FREEZING WORKS INTERVENTION.

Mr Bodkin challenged Mr Chapman’s statement that the Government stood for orderly methods in the settlement of disputes, and cited the Government’s attitude in the recent freezing works stay-in strike in Auckland, when the employers had been denied their xights as individuals of police assistance in regaining possession of their property. Surely one of the fundamental principles, he said, was to give protection to both the person and property of individuals, but in this case the Government had ceased to function as a Government at all. The Government’s action was a complete repudiation of the award and everything that the Arbitration Court stood for.

Mr Lyons said Mr Bodkin had stressed a side of the Auckland freezing works case which was likely to provide valuable political capital for -the Opposition, but he had failed to outline a side of the case which showed the Government up in a very favourable light. He contended that a mistake had been niade in connection with the Auckland men’s award which inflicted an injustice on one section of the employees, and it was the Minister’s duty to see that the injustice was rectified. This had been done. He pointed out that while the men had been engaged in their stay-in strike they had organised gangs to i clean up the works, and when the strike was over the works were cleaner than they had ever been before. The works had been cleaned up from top to bottom. The idea behind Mr Bodkin’s wish for police protection, he said, was that force should used and trouble precipitated as the result. RACING CLUBS’ INCLUSION. Mr Cobbe complained of the provision in the Bill relating to racing clubs and chartered clubs, and said he felt sure the members of the Government representing country constituencies would not welcome it. He suggested that it should be withdrawn. The Minister of Mines, Mr Webb, stated that the Government had conferred with the representatives of the New Zealand Racing Conference on the Bill, and after the provisions of the measure had been explained to them they had been completely satisfied. Racing clubs paid their employees higher wages than those for casual labour stipulated in any award. Racing representatives had been somewhat apprehensive in case the Bill affected employees in the totalisators, but when it was explained that these people would not be concerned with the Bill the representatives were quite satisfied, and Mr Webb said he felt sure no opposition to the Bill would be forthcoming from the racing clubs of the Dominion. NO CONFUSION LIKELY. Mr Coleman held that there would be no clashing between the two Arbitration Courts, because the courts themselves would arrange which type of case each was to take. One might confine itself to compensation cases, for instance, and the other to the making of awards. It appeared that the only means by which unions could get their cases heard by the Arbitration Court, on account of the pressure of work facing that court, was by taking unconstitutional action. The provision of a second court and the power given magistrates to hear industrial cases would relieve that position. GO SLOW TACTICS. Mr Smith said there was provision in 'the Bill to make the appointment of the second Arbitration Court judge more

than temporary. _ The Minister could continue the appointment from year to year. He stated that the judge of the present court was the greatest authority in the Dominion on compensation law, and he asked the Minister, when appointing the second court, if he would appoint the present judge of the Arbitration Court to deal only with compensation cases, thus having one court dealing only with this class of case. Referring to the freezing workers’ complaints concerning the chain system of killing, he stated that the leaders of the old Freezing Workers’ Union themselves had been responsible for that system. It had only been imposed after the Auckland strike. With reference to Mr Armstrong’s action in connection with that strike. Mr Smith thought interference by Ministers with .judges of the court must he handled with extreme care. He thought Mr Armstrong himself would have realised that by now. Mr Endean expressed the opinion that the administration of the industrial laws had led to a woeful lack of efficiency m industry throughout the Dominion. The watersiders and coal miners, in fact many branches of labour, were adopting go slow tactics, and were attempting to get as much as they could for as little effort as possible. It was a policy which was proving seriously detrimental to the Dominion. Mr Dickie also referred to the Auckland freezing works strike, and said he hoped the terms of awards in the future would he adhered to both by the workers and the employers. He thought the chain system of killing for freezing works had come to stay, and he agreed with Mr Smith that the unions themselves had been responsible for its introduction. THE MINISTER REPLIES. The Minister of Labour, Mr Armstrong, replying to the debate, said the Opposition’s criticisms of the Labour Department and the actions of the Minister had been hopelessly astray. With regard to the citation clause, the Opposition’s contention that.every individual employer to an award should be cited was wrong in theory. Would the Opposition expect employers to cite every individual employee who was to be governed by an award? The suggestion that industrial magistrates in larger centres should be empowered to visit smaller centres to hear cases was quite a good one, and in all possibility this would be done. There would be co-ordination between the two Arbitration Courts, he said, and he thought most of the difficulties feared by the Opposition would be overcome by the adoption of common-sense methods. BASIC WAGE DEFENDED. The Minister continued 1 that the Leader of the Opposition had continued to criticise the basic wage and its effects on the youth of the country. He wished for its repeal because young people were being dismissed when they reached years of adulthood. If the Government increased the age when the basic wage applied to 31, the Opposition would want it to be increased to 41, and' then would want it increased to 51. Finally, people would be getting the old-age pension before they received tliej basic wage. The Leader of the Opposition knew that the employers dismissed adults and employed youths and girls right through the ages. WHY HE “ BUTTED IN.” Dealing with his action concerning the Auckland strike, he said he had not wanted to “ butt in,” if he could help it, but his telephone had .lot ceased to ring with requests that he should _ come to Auckland and settle the strike. He had also received scores of letters and telegrams, all from employers’ organisations, urging him to settle the strike. At last Cabinet had agreed that he should go, and when the 'strike had been settled a sigh of relief had gone up in business circles in Auckland. If a firm stand had not been taken and the strike settled, it would have extended beyond Auckland. The Minister proceeded to detail his actions in the settling of the dispute, stating that ho had visited the four freezing works and had talked to the strikers until he hadn’t a whisper left. His audiences had been hostile J ■ liira at first, hilt he had directed them to come out of the works that day, and the men had done so. “I asked them,” said Mr Armstrong “ whether they were going to rule the country, or whether we were. I said we were. I then told the men to resume work on Monday, and that also was done.” The racing clubs, said Mr Armstrong, had been quite satisfied with tie provisions of the Bill when they had been explained to them, and the Bill would not force small farmers shearing sheep on the co-operative system to join the shearers’ unions if they were not required to do so under the existing legislation. COMMITTEE STAGE. When the Bill reached the committee stage, Mr-Hamilton said the Minister had evaded the point in connection with the Auckland strike —that was that he had overridden his own court’s award. He was entitled to credit for settling the strike, tut the point remained that he had overridden the court’s award. Mr Smith moved an amendment to clause 3 of the Bill, so that the nominated members of the court would be appointed by the employers and workers, and not nominated by the Minister. The , amendment was lost on the voices. Mr Sexton moved an amendment to clause 5 to exempt small mixed farmers from the provisions of the shearers’ award, provided they_ possessed fewer than 500 ewes on their farms. The amendment was defeated by 3515. . Mr Hamilton moved an amendment that the clause which had been struck out of the Bill should be reinserted in the measure. The amendment provided that nothing in clause 4 of the Bill should empower the court to delegate its functions in respect of the hearing of disputes or the making of awards. JThe amendment was defeated by 3615, and the BiJI passed through the committee without amendment. THIRD READING. The third reading was then passed.