THE ARBITRATION ACT

Northern Advocate, 3 November 1927, Page 4

THE ARBITRATION ACT

FEARS OF DAIRY WORKERS. ACT WORKS BENEFICIALLY. COST OF PRODUCTION REDUCED. WELLINGTON, This Day. Before the Labour Bills Committee, Mr John, representing the Auckland Dairy Workers’ Union stressed the conditions under which the dairy workers earned their living. There should be some limitation of the hours of employees ami the union, in his district, worked harmoniously. To bring in the bill would be to bring in strikes, at present absent and break down industry and cause falling oft’ in quality. The fear of the men was if they were cut out of the Act, wages would fall and the good team work now being done, by good, well paid men, would suffer.’ Mr R Fulton, representing the Taranaki dairy workers, said the bill was in the interests of neither the workers nor the farmers. He quoted from the balance-sheets of seven factories To show that a general reduction in the cost of production per lb, had taken place since the coming into operation of the Arbitration Court awards.— Press Assn. FARMERS’ VIEWPOINT. EVIDENCE OF MR POLSON. WELLINGTON, This Day. Before the Labour Bills Committee the hearing of evidence in regard to the Arbitration Act Amendment Bill was continued. ,Mr W. J. Poison, representing the New Zealand Farmers’ Union, said that while his organisation approved, generally, of the Bill, there were points it did not approve of. It would prefer a Judge alone, or three Judges, preferably the latter to assessors, who were invariably violently partisan and subject to re-election every three years. It seemed that the principle of replacing men at the end of their term, who did not give agreeable judgments, was subversive of British justice. The court already admitted of the provision of exports, when necessary, so that three judges would be a suitable arrangement. The Union was not seeking the abolition of preference to unionists, which he considered desirable, but if there was preference there should be ■no striking. He asked that preference should automatically cease where any union had committed a breach of the law in disputes in which; farmers were substantially concerned. Farmers should be permitted to appear, as a body, at court. The shearing industry affected farmers to only a trifling extent as compared with the effect of all awards in which they were interested, ■ The chairman: “You condemn the exemption of the farming industry, including shearing and freezing?’’ “ Yes. ’ ’ —Press Assn. THE COURT UPHELD, EMPLOYERS’ RESOLUTIONS. WELLINGTON, This Day. A meeting of the New Zealand Employers’ Federation, consisting of delegates from all sections, yesterday considered the Arbitration Amendment Act. It was agreed that some form of arbitration was necessary. The future success of collective bargaining must depend upon the goodwill and loyalty of both employers and workers to the system, and this could be secured only, while both employers and workers had confidence in the system. The present arbitration system had won the confidence of the majority of the employers and workers. Any amendment should be designed to increase this confidence. It was essential that the utmost care should be taken to avoid anything likely to endanger confidence. Anything in the nature of party, or class, legislation should be absolutely ruled out. The meeting examined, moat carefully, seven different new constitutions, but came to the unanimous conclusion that none was an improvement, or even as good, as the present constitution. The only alteration suggested was that the term of office of the nominated members should be extended from three to five vears. K

As to exemptions of industries, it was resolved: "That this meeting is strongly of opinion that the statutory exemption of certain industries is illogical and unsound in principle, and, further, that the present proposals are not in the best interests of the farming community or of the employers and workers generally. It was also resolved, in regard to the preference issue, that inasmuch as the inclusion of preference in an award under the present Statute is not compulsory, but wholly within the discretion of the court, this Federation is of opinion that nothing in the present circumstances of New Zealand industries calls for any statutory action in Ibis matter of preference. Consequently the executive protests most strongly against the passage of the Bill, which, however bona fide the intentions of its supporters, simply amounts to selling the farmer a pup.

RETENTION OP ACT, ALTERATION MEANS TROUBLE. WELLINGTON, This Day. Further evidence from the employees’ side regarding the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act was given before the Labour Bills Committee this morning. Charles Henry Chapman, secretary of

the Wellington Typographical Union, said he was instructed to ask for the withdrawal of the Bill, on the ground that it would cause industrial disturbance. The unions were opposed to the limitation of choice of assessors. While there had been cases where it appeared that the Court had favoured one side more than the other, in the light of evidence, the weight of opinion in the Typographical Union was in favour of its retention in its present form. Regarding piecework, the witness said he neither favoured it, nor. was against it, but he did say it would only work well under, collective bargaining and that individual agreements would make trouble. —ress Assn. ABOLITION WANTED. PASTOR A LISTS ’ VIEW. WELLINGTON, This Day. At the conclusion of his evidence before the Labour Bills Committee, Mr W. J. Poison, placed the views of the farmers officially before the committee. Mr Nicholson, secretary of the NewZealand Sheepowners’ Federation, said the Bill would only give partial, relief and did not go to the root of the matter, because indirect charges through the cost of production in the Dominion were a bigger burden on the producer than any direct charges through the awards of the court, which might apply to factories, but not to the farm. The court should be entirely independent of outside influence and its judgments should be purely on the evidence. He believed the cost of every article had increased, because the Court had increased wages. The court should be abolished because it was uneconomical. Last year, in spite of the cost of Jiving having gone down, the court increased the shearers’ wages at a time of depression.

Asked if an industry, that could not pay a living wage, should not cease to exist, the witness said that could not be applied to a primary industry.— Press Assn.