ARBITRATION COURT POWERS

Greymouth Evening Star, 25 October 1930, Page 7

ARBITRATION COURT POWERS

NEW BILL INTRODUCED ALLEGED BAD FAITH [SPECIAL TO “STAB.”] WELLINGTON, October 25. An unusual position arose in the House last night, when after the Appropriation Bill had been put through the committee stage, the Government brought on the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill, one of the most contentious measures of the session, which had been long deferred, for the second reading. Mr Coates immediately indicated that there would be strong objection from the Reform benches.

Mr Holland, on behalf of Labour, expressed a hope that the Bill w’ould be dealt with on its merits, and not blocked by any technical objections, as Mr Forbes had given a definite promise that it would be put through. He took it that Mr Forbes would honour that promise.

The Bill would go through even if it e'ntailed continuing the session until next week; the Minister of Labour (Mr Smith) said the measure was not contentious. It only restored to the Arbitration Court the power it had been exercising for many years. It would not bring farm labourers under the Court, notwithstanding what had been said to the contrary. If the employers and workers agreed to a certain clause going into an award, the Bill proposed that the Court should have power to incorporate it, provided it was satisfied such inclusion was right and proper, and if the House refused tb pass the Bill, there would be great injustice to the workers of New Zealand. The Bill will not bring in compulsory unionism, unless all parties agreed, and the Court was satisfied. Mr Ransom said it was only recently he was made aware a

PROMISE HAD BEEN MADE by Mr Forbes that the Bill would be brought down as a Government measure, but he was not prepared to accept the statement that an assurance has been given the Bill would be put through all its stages this session. Explaining the origin of the Bill, Mr Smith said a dispute had arisen between the seamen’s Union and Sandford Ltd., of Auckland. A certain matter had been settled in the Conciliation Council, and others on which & settlement had been reached, w'ere referred to the Court. After hearing the parties, the Court settled the matters in dispute and issued an award, but notwithstanding that certain clauses had been agreed to by the parties, the Court purposely omitted them because of a doubt whether they were within the scope of the Court s jurisdiction. ’ The Court, had submitted a case to the Court of Appeal, as to whether it was within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court to include in its awards, the provisions in the controversy. The points in dispute had related to preference, compelling non-unionists, on being employed, to become and remain members of the union, and giving the union power to deal with members wilfully missing their passage, wilfully misconducting themselves on board ship, or wilfully impeding the voyage of a ship. The Court of Appeal had decided that these were not industrial matters, and that the Arbitration Court had been right in refusing to include them. The effect of the decision was that other matters, which in the past, had been inserted in awards, on agreement between the parties, could no longer be inserted. The object of the Bill was to remedy this state of affairs, and give, the Arbitration Court power to include in its awards, if it so decided, matters similar to those mentioned, which had been agreed upon between the parties.

A REFORM STONEWALL. Mr Coates said that the Bill allowed any agreement arrived at in the Conciliation Council, or between employers and employees to become an industrial matter. It. would be extremely wrong if the thin end of the wedge was inserted, by a simple arrangement between two or three men, and which might affect thousands of farmers and others. It would be dangerous for the House to do anything which would adversely affect the pri mary producers. He had received dozens of telegrams from employers’ organisations throughout the country against the measure. He was very doubtful whether the workers wanted the Bill. Leaders of unions wanted it because they had been referred to by the Minister, and the result of their failure was that in one case, a new union was formed by the men themselves. Was the House prepared to give a blank cheque to such an organisation as might suddenly spring up as the result of the organising capacity of a union secretary, who might work up a small union to begin with, and which might grow to much grea.ter dimensions, once the Court had recognised it. Reform members thereupon settled down to develop a stonewall against the progress of the second reading and this continued until 2 a.m., when Mr Ransom moved the adjournment of the debate. z Mr Fraser immediately rose and remarked that he did not wish to comment on the.sign of weakness so far as the Government was concerned, which the motion clearly indicated. He recalled that the Bill had been promised to trades unionists, and that the full weight of Government would be placed behind it, and that so far as the Government could control it, the measure would be passed. The motion was carried by 35 to 16, the Reform voting with the Government.

The debate was then declared set down for resumption on the next sitting day, and the third reading of the Appropriation Bill affording a wide range of debate was called/ on. Mr Fraser said the attitude of the Government would absolutely wreck any faith the Labour Party had in the promise that the Bill would go through. It seemed that the Government’s word could not be relied on. For two hours,’ Labour rated the Government in strong and bitter terms for failing to fulfil its promise. The Appropriation Bill was passed at 4.35 a.m., and the House adjourned until 9.30, when the final business of the session will be transacted.