ARBITRATION ACT.

Northern Advocate, 31 January 1922, Page 6

ARBITRATION ACT.

WORKERS' PROTEST,

"CHAOS WILL FOLLOW."

DEPUTATION TO MINISTER

WELLINGTON, This Day,

A deputation of representatives of worker?-' unions waited on the Minister of Labour (the Hon. G. J. Anderson) arid protested against amendments that the Government proposes to make in the Arbitration Act. Speakers said that the passing of the measure would be followed bv chaos.

Mr P. Eraser, M.P., introduced the deputation, which consisted of the following representatives, and claimed to speak for the whole of the Labour inovetnent in Now Zea'and: —Messrs O. \V. Whitty (Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners), F. Xiall (Freezing Workers' Federation), R. MeKeen (Grocers' Union and Woollen Workers' Union), A. Parlane (Drivers' Federation), .J. Roberts (Alliance of Labour). F. Corn well (' rades and Lab our Council and Building Trades Federation), 11. Dyson (Storemen's Federation), W. T. Young (Seamen's Federation), W. Waterworth. (Clothing Trades Federation), A. L. Monteith (Tramways Federation), .T. Read (Timber Workers' Federation and Enginedrivers' Federation), Captain Maclndoe (Merchant Ser\ice Guild). VOTING POWERS OP UNION.

Mr W. T. Young, Fcdoratod Seamen's Tin ion, referred to clause 3, limiting the \otes for representatives on the court to three tor each organisation. In New Zealand, according to the latest return, there were 406 unions with IS-14 voies for the election of a court representative. The 'bill proposed to reduce the vote? to 717. The unions had a membership of 96,350 The bill would give representation on the court to 37,290 and no representation to 59,0.1."). If the Government called that democracy the deputation did not. Seventeen unions in the Taranaki district with a total membership of 1087 would cot 2.° i votes, whereas a single union with 1087 would have only three votes. The same thing "applied to the Nelson and Marlborough districts. Here was the railway organisation with 8000 members absolutely ostracised, yet the Minister had the power to force that union into the court at any time of his own sweet will. Members of the union which hp represented had the right to select their own representatives on the court or flnvwhero else, because they had to take the consequences.

LIABLE TO VICTIMISATION. If Labour selected its representatives and officers by plebiscite, why should the Government dictate that it should

select its representatives in any other way? Clause 8 of the I ill said that no one.should be eligible to sit oji a Council of Conciliation except a worker engaged in the industry in the district. No Labour union had asked for that amendment. The employers were indirectly represented because the weaker the assessor they could get on the other side the better it was for them. There was not a man in the room who was not practical in the indiistry which he represented. He had seventeen years' practical experience of seamanship; Captain Maclndoe, of the Merchant Service Guild, was a master mariner. Yot neither of them were to be allowed to represent their organisation on the council. They also had exporence in negotiation. This was done, probably unintentionally, by the Minis ter so as to weaken the Labour assessors so that the employers could ride right over them. It was said th.tt this

was done so as to bring about a greater number of settlements before the Arbitration Court. Evidence before the Labour Bills Committee showed that 93 per cent, of the disputes were settled before the Conciliation Councils, and

of tlie remaining 7 per cent., 4 per cent. were settled except for, one or two points reserved for the court. In the in, ions, especially the small ones, there would be difficulty in obtaining assessors, and if those men did anything against. the employers' interests thev would be liable to victimisation.

PAYMENT OF ASSESSORS,

Mr F. Cornwell said it was strange that this bill had not been prepared at the request of the employers, since not one of the clauses was acceptable to the workers. There were many prions who would see 1 oth representatives removed entirely from the court rathe; than have the method of election tinkered with. Further, they would prefer to have the payment of assessors struck out, though that would be a injustice to the smaller unions rather than have the method of selection interfered with. The Govern-

ment was now proposing to grant to the employers what the unions wished to lmvo when wages wore going up. The employers them opposed it. and won thek* point. The unions had wished to have wages adjusted or. the: monthly figure, but the six-monthly average was

given. Now, when prices were falling, the monthly figure wns to be given. The workers were robbed all along when the cost of living was rising, and now the Government was proposing to make it possible to rob thom still further. The unions considered that wages should be allowed to stand as they wore Until new awards were made by the court on application of either party. There was power now for employers to apply for amendment of an award if the industry could not pay the present wages. ill- Corn well also criticised the penalty cla.uso of the bill, as he considered there was quite sufficient power in the present law. There was a feeling among unions that the Labour Department was devoting the. whole of its iim:> to protecting employer-. In fact, the department might be nothing more nor less than a branch of the Employers' Federation. FREEZING WOKKERW' REPREsentative. Mr F. Xiall, Freezing Workers' Federation, said the bill s-hould be called n bill to end, not amend, the Arbitration Act. lie understood from Mr Rowley that the Labour Department wa<; not responsible for the proposal rogardiig assessors. The unions had not asked lor it, and the employers said they had not, so it looked as if the Government had had a very bad nightmare. The cft'ect of the proposal would be that assessors would be given instructions not to agree- to any settlement, but to allow the dispute to go to the court, wlie.ro their advocate could appear for thom. The cost of living was going over the head of the court by scatutc law. The freezing worker.' •iad been before the court, and an a-.; rd had been made. If those men w.rre now to be made subject to further reductions of ]2J to 15 per cent, they wot,]d not stand for it. This would invite trouble at a lime when it was desire! that the stock should be put thror.gh in the best condition. It was Ins opinion that if the general order \S Ti re made reducing vvages on Airi "O o r May 1 there would be no workers in Ihe Ireezi.ig industry. As 1o : n • pen:iltv —'here were so !..• ny pern'.';' •?. already that one more would n->r imU much ditloivnce, hut he was surprised that the Government d'd nor go lite length of making it ten veir 1 penal servitude. MORE TALK OP VICTIMISATION. Mr J. Roberts said that this deputation was the first shot from the Alliance of Labour. Ho might as well say plainly that thoy were going to oppose the bill tooth and nail, regardless of whether it became law or not. There was not in company or friendly society law anything approtching the proposals linig the votng power of unions. They could not be supported on any logical ground. During the war the unions were law-abiding, but the Go-

vornmoiit was becoming more and more vindictive, and it was now a question of whether the workers' organisations were to be killed outright or the Government was to be called off. The workers right down were making trouble, find whon that started n6 Labour leader in the world could stop thorn. Municipal workers were to be deprived of the right to go to the court, and if thev attempted to protect their rights in any way they would be victimised by the City Fathers. The workers of New Zealand hud tried to act lawfully. The Government was not satisfied, and it now introduced a bill to compel them .to take the law into their own hands. He accepted the Minister's statement that he bill was not prepared for the employers, but it seemed very strange .that. Mr Bishop, representing the employers, approved every clause. Mr Bishop said that the employers would not victimise workers acting 011 Conciliation Councils, I'ut the organisation Mr Bishop represented was now victimising hundreds of miners in the south just because they had been unionists and .had fought for their rights.

THE COST OF MVIXG. In the cost of living clause they were going to compel the workers to do a starve, and ithe workers would not stand for it. The Government was departing from every Government principle and reducing wages by statute law. Increases had to .be oibtained by negotiations, but reductions were to i e nwvJe without that process. This was grossly unjust to the workers, and he would oppose it and ask the woker.- to oppose it. The penalty clause sentenced to death the right of free speech and free criticism of any industrial award. It was the old war law with n little Pnissi.fi,nism thrown in. The workers-' loaders had done much to keep them law-abiding. Now .they would not take the responsibility of advising them, but would say, "There is the award! Do what you like with it." Then the Government would have to

deal with the mob. The effect of the bill was that the Government deprived tin- unions of the right to Appoint viicim they wished as assessors, deprived them of the right of selecting their representatives on the court, and when in; award was made took power to fine thorn £50 if they did not accept it. At some time the worker would decide that •it was better to starve quickly than slowly, and then -he would express .himself, probably in action. THE MINISTER'S REPLY. The Minister said that the bill was to be considered by the Committee today. He had heard their evidence and could compliment them on the way in which they had put their case. He was not prepared to say what he would do now. but he would take into very careful consideration what they had said, more especially with reference to the assessors, the local bodies, and clause 11. He did not thank that the penalty clause would operate in the way that they said. He was legally advised that it would not, and he would not think of making such an absurd provision. He would also look into the question of count representation, but he could hold out very little hope of an nheratiori with regard to the A.S.R.S., though he would consult the Minister of Railways on the point.