TRADES CONFERENCE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXXIII, Issue 15900, 11 April 1912, Page 3

TRADES CONFERENCE.

TOE UNITY PROPOSALS.

THE ARBITRATION COURT. [Per Prebs Association.2 WELLINGTON. April 10. At the Trades and Labour Councils’ Conference the general principles, of the unity proposals were formally adopted without discussion.

Mr R. Breen (Otago), then moved—- ‘ That the constitution of the Federation be amended by the adoption ot the unity proposals in whole or in part, together with any further amendments which may be agreed to, . and. such amended constitution shall take the place of tho present constitution of the New Zealand Federation of Workers as endorsed by the Trades and Labour Councils and affiliated unions.” An amendment to withhold consideration until the unity proposals had been considered was lost, and tho motion was carried on the voices.

A discussion then took place on the question of amalgamation with the Federation ,of Labour. . Various motions were proposed, but met witli some opposition, one speaker saying that the Miners' Federation, if given time, would die a natural death.

Ultimately, Mr Coleman (East Coast) proposed a "motion affirming that delegates to the Conference, if tho unity proposals were adopted, should do their utmost to bring about the amalgamation of the Trades and Labour Councils and the Federation of Labour, registered. Tho president, the Hon J. T. Paul, M.L.C., agreed that “this side of the movementhad done everything possible to bring about amalgamation. The leaders of the Federation of Labour, or some of. them, were not prepared to promulgate' a policy acceptable to a majority of the workers of New Zealand, but one which was personally acceptable to them. They were in the position of dictators. They were not administering to the desires of the democracy. He did not think that the motion, in view of the unity proposals, should be adopted. Tho Federation of Labour lmd, by its attitude, forfeited its right to take part in any unified scheme in the interests of Labour.

Mr Sullivan (Canterbury) agreed that nothing short of the adoption of its revolutionary constitution would satisfy the leaders of tho Federation of Labour.

Mr Coleman, in reply, emphasised the fact that the real need was to get into touch with the rank and file. The motion was carried with two dissentients.

A drastic motion referring to the conduct of the president of the Arbitration Court came before the Conference when Mr Sullivan (Canterbury), in very strong terms moved a motion condemnatory of Mr Justice Sim’s treatment of .Union representatives before the Court, and attributing the large number of Union cancellations to his methods in administering the Act. Mr Sullivan said that tho language of the remit might be strong, but he asserted that the discourteous treatment meted out by Mr Justice Sim was responsible for niany cancellations of registration that had taken place. Mr W. T. Noon (Wellington) moved an amendment —“ That a committee be set up to draft a new Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, this to apply to all remits dealing with the Act.” He declared that ho had been treated courteously by the Court, and it was undeniable" that certain Union had tried to browbeat the Court. Whilst the Wellington Council was of opinion that somebody other than a Judge, should be president of the Court, it could not support tnc motion. The president ruled that tho amendment was not in order. Mr Muir (Wellington) also stated that he had been courteously treated by the Judge of the Court, and in one case he had received considerable help from him. Still, the Judge sometimes asked Union officials to make their case as short as possible, owing to pressure of duty. He seemed to make the Arbitration Court subsidiary to the Supreme Court. The work of the Arbitration Court should ho pre-eminent in point of importance. , Mr Burgoyne (Canterbury), said tnat in a recent case at Christchurch the Judge had jumped on him almost before ho opened his case. , , Mr W. W. Naughton said he thought the discussion was not likely to do any good. The same complaints had been made about Mr Justice Chapman and Mr Justice Cooper. It appeared that some people always expected to get concessions from the Court. He thought that most peoole who went before tho Court received the greatest courtesy. Mr Burgoyne: I have.not. Mr Naughton demanded to know why if the Conference thought tho Judge of tho Arbitration Court was the wrong man it did not say so. He doubted whether tney would do any better with a commercial man at tn© head of the Court. If the motion was passed what good would it do? If they were going to suggest that a Supreme Court Judge should not be at the need of the Court, and he hoped* they tvero not. they should say so. There was nothing to be gained by “slanging” Judges. Mr R. Breen (Otago) said he would oppose the motion because, in the first place, it was not a truthful motion. The motion was rejected on thecasting vote of the chairman.