INDUSTRIAL ARBITRATION

Greymouth Evening Star, 9 May 1936, Page 7

INDUSTRIAL ARBITRATION

NEW BILL CONTESTED FARMERS AND FORTY HOURS [PEE PRESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTN, May S. The House met at 10.30 a.m. The Napier Harbour Board and Napier Borough Enabling Bill was read a first time. The Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Pill was further considered, in committee, the short title still being before the Committee. Mr Wright suggested that sufficient time should be allowed between the passing of the measure and its coming into operation, especially so far as the basic wage was concerned, so that contracts in force would not be affected. Mr Polson said that the Bill did not give equal right Io both sides. Compulsion was placed entirely upon the employers, whereas there were many loopholes for the employees. The penalties for breaches of the Court’s awards were not effective against the Unions, whereas they were effective against the employers. Mr Kyle instanced the case of the freezing works employees, and said that on statutory holidays, numbering about eight a year, it might happen that the men on those days would have to be paid triple rates, and a conservative estimate of the cost would be £30,000 to £50,000 per year, if the Bill went through. On those days, if the men were required to work, perhaps to enable cargo to be prepared for shipping, they ivould be paid double time for working, and also for the holiday. If that was not the position, he hoped that the Minister would say so, as he was assured on the best authority, that it was so. Mr Coates said that the assurances of the Minister were not enough. It was what was written in the Bill that counted. He stressed the value of ( referring the Bill to a Select Com- . mittee, and went through the Bill, ] showing the amendments and the new j clauses that had been added by the f Committee. Mr Coates said he thought i that the Minister had honestly tried < to rectify many weaknesses that existed, but his was not going to be a f bed of roses. i

Mr Semple defended the establishmetn of New Zealand Unions, and said that the Dominion had reached the point of development when it was desirable that “calf” unions should disappear. He hoped to see agreements arrived at by means of collective bargaining, not forced bargaining. He said that there was no provision in the Bill for freezing workers to be paid triple rates. All the freezing workers would receive would be determined round the table, through conciliation, or by the Judge, based on evidence. To talk as Mr Kylo had talked was bunkum. Mr Semple added that the multiplicity of unions in industry was not conducive to the best interests of the country.

Mr Hargest said lie thought that the Bill would raise costs and also reduce the volume of work, especially in the country districts. He said that it would have an adverse effect on the volume of production of the primary industries. He could not see how the farmers could have a. forty-hour week, and compete with other countries.

LEVY LIMITS. Mr Forbes said that the members of unions should have some protection, as io what levy could be imposed on them. He did not think such rigid conditions should be imposed on the employers as were contained in the Bill.

Mr Armstrong said that the unions would not be levied for more than it took for the actual running of the unions. All members of a union had a vote, and although, to-day, the unions had the right to levy up to a shilling, he knew of no union that had ever reached that maximum. ‘Mr Forbes: Then why make the sky the limit? . Mr said that there might be special cases, where it might, be desirable to make a higher levy, if a substantial majority nf the members wished to do so. ‘ The general run was sixpence for men, and threepence for women. Mr Langstone: What do the employers charge for their union? Mr Dickie: Not a shilling per week. Mr. Armstrong: I think it is based on turnover. Opposition voices: No, no. You have it all wrong. Mr. Coates asked what would happen if a member of a union refused to pay. Mr. Armstrong said he simply refused to pay. That was all. Much depended on the rules of the union. Mr. Polson: I-I3 can’t get another job. Mr. Armstrong said that some

guilds, perhaps, had sick payments, or provided some such benefit, and might desire to levy more than a shilling. Mr. Armstrong said that his desire was to prevent the minority dominating the majority in a union. In amending the Bill, to provide that a New Zealand union could not be formed, unless four unions in the eight industrial districts applied for it, he was considering making some provision to cover those affected,, such as contractors, by the increased costs due to the passing of the Bill, but the law draughtsman informed him that the Bill was not the place to do it, and it could be done in the Finance Bill, at a later stage. Mr. Smith asked the Minister to leave the law as it stood regarding subscriptions. Mr. Wright thanked the Minister for making provision for those who had conscientious objections to joining unions, where businesses were not run for pecuniary gain, but he thought the exemption should go further, and provide for Jhose who were engaged in other occupations, but whose religious beliefs debarred them from joining a union. He did not suggest that they should be exempted from paying their levies, and did not think these men desired that. The short title was passed, on the voices. A division was called for on clause two, covering an extension of the term, “industrial matters,” as set out in the principal Act, and as judicially construed, but the clause was retained by 50 votes to 19. On clause three, Mr. Hamilton moved an amendment to provide that the basic wage should be fixed on an hourly as well as a weekly basis. He

said that the clause seemed to suggest a weekly rate, but the employer should not be compelled to pay a weekly wage for perhaps a day or two’s work. Mr. Armstrong said that the basic wage was the irreducible minimum, | but the rest, he thought, could be) safely left to the good sense of thel Court. He had no serious objections to the amendment, but thought it was unnecessary, because the Court could, as the clause read now, fix an hourly or weekly rate. He suggested that the clause should be postponed till' later in the day, and this was agreed to. An amendment to clause four by the Minister, regarding the registration of unions, where an existing union is already in existence, was I carried.

An amendment by the Minister, limiting applications for Dominion registration to unions which are fairly well established throughout the Dominion, was carried. The luncheon adjournment was taken. PLAIN WORDS TO UNIONS NO FLOUTING THE LAW. WELLINGTON, May 8. The committee stages of the. Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill were continued this afternoon. An amendment by Mr. Polson to Clause 6, providing that a New Zealand award could be registered only when a majority of workers and employers approved, was lost on the voices.

Coming to Clause 11, Mr. Polson moved an amendment, the effect of which, he said, was to prevent hole and corner agreements being entered into in places where the majority of workers were engaged. This was lost after a division by -18 to 17. Clause 12 was challenged, but was retained by 51 to IS. On the next clause, that restoring to the Arbitration Court its former) jurisdiction, in relation to industrial] dsputes, Mr. Coates contended that had the present provision of compulsory conciliation and optional arbitration been allowed to continue a little longer, it would have proved more acceptable to both the employers and employees. Mr. Armstrong said that in the past few years, disputes could go to the Court only if the employers approved. The present clause restored the right both employers and employees had prior to 1932. At the present time, in some cases it was the employee who was refusing to go to the Arbitration Court.

Mr. Bodkin said the Bill did not give any complete control over the big unions. He suggested that the same provisions, that were in some Australian statutes, providing for cancellation of registration of unions, should be included in the Bill. If that were done, the Opposition would withdraw its opposition to the clause. Mr. Armstrong said he did not know whether members of the Opposition were serious in trying to improve the Bill, or talking just for the sake ofj talking. If they were not talking just for the sake of talking, each one said that if penalties for a breach of an award were imposed, they would sup-| port it. He proceeded to read the clause in the original act of 1925, which was not being repealed by the present Bill, providing for the suspension of unions when convicted of certain offences. The Minister said the Government believed that the provision was necessary, and did not intend to repeal it. The Government did not intend to allow the workers on one side, or the employers on the other to flout the law. Because it had been done in the past, there was no reason why the present Government should shut their eyes to what was happening. That was the way he proposed to adminster the Department, while he was in charge of it. ■ 'Mr. Hamilton: That’s the stuff. Mr. Armstrong: If the workers want to take another course, let them get out of the Arbitration Court altogether and they would have to put up with the consequences. Opposition members had said there was a provision in the law of Australia for cancellation of the registration of unions. The late Minister had it in his own law. Mr. Hamilton: Will you put in the same clause as Australia? Mr. Armstrong: It is there. Mr. Hamilton: It is not there.

CANCELLATION. Mr. Armstrong said that in Australia, a union had to be convicted, and once convicted, the Union’s registration could be cancelled. That was the New Zealand law. Mr. Hamilton: You can never get cancellation here. Mr. Armstrong: There never was a body of workers brought before the Court in New Zealand who were not convicted, and penalties imposed, and if the court has not seen fit to cancel the registration that does not alter the fact that the Court has the power do it just as in Australia. I seriously suggest to members of the Opposition that they should study the law they have been responsible for. The difference between the law at the present time, and- the Bill before the House is that the Minister has been responsible for this one, but outside influences have been responsible for the Bills, the opposition fostered, and they did not understand them, but were simply carrying out Instructions from powers outside, and are absolutely ignorant to-day of the powers in their own Bills.

Mr. Bodkin said the Minister did not seem to know the difference between cancellation and suspension. It was never suggested there was no power to suspend unions. If the Minister would amend word suspend and give power to cancel, it would alter the whole position. Mr. Armstrong: Tell us what the difference is.

Mr. Bodkin: If a union is suspended ed, it is still in existence. Mr. Armstrong: If you cancel the registration it is still in existence. Mr. Bodkin: If .a. union is suspended for a time that does not admit the employment of others. The only people the employer can give employment to are members of the union. What we desire, and the only thing that is a real remedy, is cancellation of the Union. Mr. Hamilton: The Minister said we do not know the law. He does not know the law in practice. He does not know how it operates. I am pleased to have the Minister's assurance that he will enforce the law, and when any union will not obey the decision of the court he will have the law carried out. I think he will find under the law as it is written to-day, he cannot do it. These penalties want revising. The clause was retained by 51 to 15. Mr. Holland moved an amendment to Clause 15, with the object of allowing a continuation of piece work. After some discussion, the amendment was defeated by 48 to 14, and the clause was passed. Mr. Wright moved an amendment to Clause 16, exempting persons who

- were conscientiously opposed to trades "(unionism from membership of unions. l| The Minister explained that he had "Imade inquiries all over Australia to (see if persons of a particular religious : I organisation were exempt from the , preference clause, and he had insert- , ed a clause exempting businesses which were not in business for pecuniary gain. The amendment was defeated by 44 to 17. A further amendment by Mr. Cobbe to exempt managers in certain cases from union membership was not pressed when the Minister said he would look into the position. The clause was challenged but was retained by 48 to 16. An amendment by Mr. Polson to Clause 17, on whose behalf Mr. Coates moved it, provided that nothing in , the clause should give the right of entry to premises used exclusively as private homes. , Mr. Armstrong said there -was noth- ( ing in the bill to give such right of ; [ entry, and he would be the last to interfere with privacy of homes. The , Opposition knew there was no such intention to enter private homes, so ' why mention it. It was only done for ‘ political purposes. 1 Mr. Forbes said undoubtedly a feel- I ing of uneasiness existed that the ' right of entry could be given to a 1 union official. c Mr. Armstrong: The Judge could do s it. if he had good and sufficient rea- 7 son. s Progress was reported. T .

FARMERS’ UNION.

ATTITUDE OUTLINED. WELLINGTON, May 8. The attitude of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union toward the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill, 1936, was made clear [at a meeting of the New Zealand Executive to-day. Following is the definition by the Executive of the attitude of farmers: “The Farmers’ Union maintains that compulsory arbitration is hot conducive to industrial efficiency, but that it tends to build up a mass of restrictive detail, which greatly increases costs of production, without really benefiting the workers. Increases are passed on by secondary indus-

tries. Unsheltered industries, such as farming, have no means of passing them on, and consequently must bear the whole burden, particularly as the Court is instructed to fix wages on the basis of the cost of living regardless of the value of Labour to a particular industry. “The chief objection of the Farmers’ Union to the Bill is that it«will have the effect of increasing costs, and’ accentuating difficulties of the farming community, which cannot pass those increased costs on. It might be said that guaranteed prices would enable increased costs to be met, but if guaranteed prices are to be continually increased to meet continually increasing costs, due to con-

tinual raising of wages to meet all increased cost of living incident to the [operation of this policy, the position will soon become so unreal as to threaten financial stability. “Objection is taken to the 40-hour week proposal, because it is felt it will mean further increasing an urban drift. The farming industry will have to compete for labour with Public Works, and other industries, holding out the five-day week, will have a greater appeal to workers than the farmers can ever hope to offer, governed as they are by the facts that animals eat, produce milk, and require attention for seven days a week; and. that crops must be gathered when ready, or lost. The basis of awards should be dependent upon the ability of industry to bear them, and the piecework system is strongly supported by the Union as it is considered that such a method of payment tends to increase production, Ifnd lower costs. “With regard to third party representation before the Arbitration Court, the Union takes up the attitude that' parties substantially concerned, even if not directly so, in any dispute before the Court, should have the right to appear and lead evidence so that the full application of any award could be viewed when one is made. Farmers have a very substantial interest, indeed, in disputes relating to freezing works’ .employees, threshing mill workers, etc., and, having to pay the piper they contend that they should have some say, and should be given a statutory right to make representations to the Court. In other cases the Court should have the right to decide what parties claiming a hearing should be deemed to have a substantial interest in a dispute. Attention is drawn to a provision in the Bill giving the Union officials power of inspection. • It is a dangerous expedient to confer on private persons not in any, way under Government control such powers, and we consider it a very objectionable feature.”