ARBITRATION ACT AMENDMENT

Greymouth Evening Star, 11 July 1908, Page 4

ARBITRATION ACT AMENDMENT

PARLIAMENT.

SOME OUTSIDE OPINIONS. THE BILL HARSHLY CRITICISED. (From Our Correspondent). DUNEDIN, This Day. The Amended Arbitration Bill was referred by a “Star” representative to a number of interested parties for an expression of opinion. THE SECRETARY OF THE OTAGO EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION. Mr W. Scott said “I think the employers generally would have preferred revolutionary conciliation to the Councils of Conciliation which are really a form of the Arbitration Court and which means a repetition of the Act of 1900 and two hearings in connection with every dispute doing away altogether with voluntary conciliation. I think the employers would prefer to give the Court power to order the parties into conference with a chairman nominated by the Court. This would bring the parties together and give them every opportunity of settling their differences in a conciliatory manner, failing which, the matter could be taken direct to the Court. There is also some doubt ns to whether the Court could ever deal with the question of “exertion” wages as it is almost impossible in connection with the building trades and the manufacturing industries of the dominion for the Court to arrive at the standard of work. These two clauses seem to me to be the weak points in the new bill. A TRADE AND LABOR REPRESENTATIVE.

Mr R. Breen, Secretary of the Trades and Labour Council said that so far as Industrial Councils wore concerned he was perfectly satisfied that no better proposal could be wished for than the one which would be submitted by the Otago Trades and Labour Council at the conference of delegates from the various councils to be held in Wellington this month. It is as follows : “That the Government be urged to amend the constitution of Conciliation Boards to provide for (a) the election of one member by the Industrial Union' of Workers and one member by the Industrial Union of Employers with a chairman appointed by the two. (b). That when a dispute is filed for hearing by the Board the union and the employers concerned appoint two representatives each to sit with the other members of the Board and adjudicate on the dispute, (c). The Board to have all the powers conferred on them as proposed in the Arbitration Bill introduced by the Minister of Labor last session. He preferred to say nothing regarding the bill generally until the full text of the measure came to hand and then it would be a matter for the Trade Council to deal with as a body. Regarding the abolishment of Conciliatory Boards and the establishment of Councils of Conciliation, I consider that one Magistrate to sit with the assessors is not sufficient and I would suggest the inclusion of two Justices of the Peace. The provision in effect is a substitution of the Conciliation Board and whilst admitting that somebody such as the proposed council is certainly desirable to order to grapple with circumstances without dangerous delay as at present. I think the constitution of the same should be extended in some such manner as I have indicated. I do not like the provision dealing with the “needs” wage and “exertion” wage. In my opinion it will not be workable. Is is too “American” and should be struck out. There are limits to the extent to which a worker can be regarded as a machine, wound up to go at a certain speed for a given length of time. I would like to see the provision deleted from the bill.’’’