THE UNITY OF LABOR

Gisborne Times, Volume LIII, Issue 5534, 16 July 1920, Page 5

THE UNITY OF LABOR

IMPORTANT PRIVATE, BILL BEFORE THE HOUSE.

‘ ‘TO ■ FACILITATE ORG ANISATION OF THE WORKERS.”

LABOR MEMBERS HA AID A FIELD DAY.

WELLINGTON, July 15. . The second reading if the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act

Amendment Bill was moved by Mr. Savage in the House yesterday. He agreed that if the House would read the Bill a second,time to refer it to tlm Labor Bills Committee. The Hon. Sir William Herries ((Minister of Labor) said one of the main principles of the measure practically amounted to the “One Big Union” system. Mr. Holland (Buller) : No. you are quite wrong! Mr. Howard (Christchurch South): dt is one union for one industry. Mr. Herries said that there could be only one Government in this country.

Air. Holland: You don’t believe in industrial autonomy. Alt- Howard: Wo’uld you apply that to the employers- also. Sir W. Her ries said that they saw at Home that the big unions' were dictating to the Government. Mr. Fraser (Wellington Central) said that there was no move in the direction of a One Big Union scheme contained in the Bill.

Air. Luke (Wellington North) said that lie had some experience of one big union so far as the tramways of the Dominion were concerned, and be was not at all sure the proposal of tlie Bill would he for the benefit of Labor. It seemed that the proposal might not be for a One Big Union for the Dominion but it was one for the Jug union that could strangle any one industry. Mr. Veitch : (Wanganui) said that as Alinister of Railways Sir W. Herries had met the union set up under tlie principle of this Bill. Sir W. Herries: There were three unions there.

Air. Veitch said that it was absurd I that tlie Union Steamship Company's employees, for instance, should have branch unions all over the countiw when they could economise and facilitate settlements by having one organisation. He agreed that some danger might accrue from lie formation of One Big Union by an attempt to usurp the functions of the general Government. He would never stand' for that, since he believed the Government should be in tlie hands of the people’s elected representatives in Parliament. But that had nothing whatever to do with the underlying principle of the Bill which was merely intended to facilitate tlie organisation and working of trade unions that were connected with industres spread all over the Dominion. Air Sullivan (Avon) said the intention of the Bill was merely to accomplish in quicker and simpler manner now where a Dominion award was being made. Both parties would be called together. Now icpresentafives from several centres lu-d to meet at considerable expense. This proposal would overcome that. The principle of the Bill would really tend to cairv matters away from the One Big Un- ! ion idea. Besides it would cheapen the administration of tlie Labor Department. Mr. Kellett (Dunedin South) was ] in favor of the Bill, but .agreed thatit should go before the committee for j full consideration. i

Air. Jones ((Ka'apoi) said a small body of workers in one corner of New Zealand could under this Bill ask for a Dominion award. He maintained that before a Dominion award were made evidence should he called in all centres affected. To give the Commissioner a vote in Conciliation Council proceedings would lit equivalent to setting up another Arbitration Court... As a general rule the Conciliation Council did not call evidence and no decision should be arrived at before the evidence was called. If the Conciliation Commissioner had a vote he would practically settle a case by his recommendation to the Court.

Mr. Parry (Auckland Central) said that the way to stir up industrial strife would he to close the door against the voluntary organisation of workers.

In reply Air. Savage said that, unfortunately, the idea underlying this Bill was not the One Big Union. He stood for the unity of Labor call it what they would.

Mr. Holland: That is what they are afraid of. Mr. Savage said that if the Art were not brought up to the requirements of to-day the workers would cancel their registration under the Act and unite outside. They would not be kept from the industrial fieldThe Bill was reaJ i second time without opposition and referred to the Labor Bills Committee. —P.A.