Continuous Silling For I. C And A. Amending Legislation

Northern Advocate, 26 August 1943, Page 4

Continuous Silling For I. C And A. Amending Legislation

WELLINGTON, This Day. Moving the second reading of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Bill in the House of Representatives at 2.5 a.m. today, the Minister for Labour (Mr. Webb) said that seme 35 years ago he had been victimised simply because he had been doing his best for the protection of his matesvln those days, he said, the employers were fierce. The original Act, passed 40 years ago, provided a penalty against an employer who dismissed a worker merely because he was an official of a union, had acted as assessor on a conciliation council, or because he was entitled to benefit under an award. But if any other reason were given by an employer for a worker’s dismissal, no matter how trivial, no action could be taken under this section. Onus on Employer The present Bill placed the onus on an employer of satisfying the court that he had dismissed an employee for other reasons, and it was in line with Australian legislation that had existed for many years. It was difficult for a worker to prove that he was dismissed for his association with union activities, but under the Bill the employer had to satisfy the court on the matter. Arbitration Court Judgment Final Dealing with the recovery of monies due to workers under awards and industrial agreements. Mr. Webb said the clause in the Bill had been drawn on lines of the Queensland and New South Wales laws. Without affecting existing civil remedies, proceedings for the recovery of arrears of wages could bo commenced in the magistrates’ court or the Arbitration Court in the same manner as for a penalty for a breach of award. Any appeal from a magistrate’s decision would go to the Court of Arbitration, and decision would be final. * Blow at British Justice The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Holland) said no Bill had been introduced for many years that aimed a more direct blow at the system of British justice than the present measure. It removed the right, of appeal from one court to another. Mr. Holland drew attention to the late hour at which the measure was being brought down for consideration, stating that the methods being employed by the Government were something in line with the justice contained in the Bill. He challenged the Government that it dare not bring down this legislation at a time when the public could listen to the debate.

Demanded by Unions Evidence clearly showed that unions were demanding" this legislation because they were dissatisfied with British justice that had stood the test over the years There was widespread concern over liie Bill, which proposed to take away from one party to a dispute the right of appeal. A case could be started in the Arbitration Court, from the decision of which there was no appeal. The Bill would also retain for the worker two lines of action, but would give the employer only one. It was unadulterated trades union domination. A ease in Point Speaking of recent harbour board cases. Mr Holland said Mr. Gilmour, the industrial magistrate, had found that, no breach had been committed but the Judge of the Arbitration Court found there was a breach, and the harbour boards had been lined It was a remarkable thing that unions with £35,000 or more involved had not asked the Arbitration Court to state, a case for the Appeal Court. They knew their case was bad. Harbour boards did not wish to pay out until they were sure that the judgment was correct and until ttic workers had exhausted their legal rights. Harbour board members had been intimidated by lawyers’ action on behalf of the unions, and they had been told that if boards did not pay up then the attention of the Auditor-General would be drawn to the fact that they were committing a breach of the award, and they might have to pay the fines themselves. Judges’ Recommendations The Minister tor Supply (Mr. Sullivan) said that the Bill only gave expression to what almost amounted to recommendations from some of the Dominion’s Judges. The legislation was not new. It had been in operation tor 25 years in one of the Australian States. Mr. W. J. Poison (Oppn.. Stratford) said that the Bill made the Arbitration Court the judge of its own awards, and if there were a weakness in an award the court, could deliver judgment patching it up. If the Bill went through, it would enable unions to institute claims to collect enormous sums of money, and by this means the Government sought to achieve a result that even Australia had never attempted. Exaggeration Alleged Mr. C. H. Chapman (Govt., Wellington N.) said that there had been a lot of misrepresentation and exaggeration about the Bill in newspapers and the House, and the claim that the Government did not dare to introduce it when the radio was operating was unfounded. It was incorrect to say that the Eill took away the right of appeal from one side only, for neither unions nor employers would be able to appeal from decisions of the Arbitration Court. It was incorrect to say that if the Bill went through, harbour boards would have to fifid £30,000, because the £30,000 estimate was based on a five-year period, whereas the Bill would go back only 12 months. Appeals Not Normal Procedure The Attorney-General (Mr. Mason) said that there might be an impression that appeal was a normal procedure, but that was not so. Appeal was not an inherent right, but was always a special creation of Statute, and there was no need to get excited about the right of appeal. Miss Mabel Howard (Govt., Chch. E.) said she 1 thought the Arbitration Court should deal with all industrial matters. A lot had been heard about Trades Hall domination, but it was very patent that the measure the Opposition was dancing to was domination by the employers’ association.

Mr. C. G. Harker (Oppn.. Waipawa) contended that the Bill was another attack by the Government on some of the cardinal principles of justice. The Government was placing expediency before principle, and party before the welfare of the country. Sacking of Loafers The Minister for Public Works (Mr. Semple! said there was nothing to prevent an employer sacking a loafer if the Bill were passed. He had personally sacked hundreds of them. When he took charge of the Public Works Department he found it full of individuals who had been living on the dole for four years and had forgotten how to work. Mr. F. W. Doidge (Oppn., Tauranga) asked if the Government would apply to itself a provision in the Bill that a worker must no'l be victimised because of participation in union activities. Would it apply this rule in the case of the Railways Department and Post and Telegraph Department? he asked. Mr. W. S. Goosman (Oppn.,. Waikato) claimed that provisions of the Bill were the effect of years of old grudges. There mav have been necessity for the Bill years ago', but those days were gone, and there was no need now. P.M. Says Bill is Fair Mr. Fraser said he could not understand what all the clamour against the Bill was about. What it proposed was fair, and it only carried out the intentions of the founders of the Arbitration Court. It would result in more speedy justice, and if employers and employees got together they could satisfactorily settle a matter of claims made by employees.

Secciiti Readmit Carried The first division on the passing cl the second reading was called for at 8 a.m.. the second reading being carried by 37 to 19. and the House formally went into committee before adjourning for breakfast. CGiitenticus Clause After the House resumed at D. 30 Opposition members proceeded to discuss the Short Title in the committee stages on similar lines to those adopted during the second reading of the debate. Discussion continued until 10.20 when a division was called for bv the CpDCsition or. the passing of the Short. Title which was eventually put through by 32 to 19 and the House proceeded with consideration of Clause Two of the Bill. Mr Broadfoot (Oppn.-Waitomo) moved an amendment lo make an alteration which he said was designed to remove a difficulty which the Opposition saw io determining whether the alteration of the position was to the detriment of the worker. He contended that without the amendment there would be endless con- | fusion. The amendment was losi by 54 to 17. Minor amendments mainly confined to alteration ol words were also moved in respect to other parts of Clause Two. but these also were defeated on the divisions by similar vote. The clause was finally passed at 11.15 a.m. by 35 to 17 and Clause Three passed without division or amendment. A few minutes later a minor amendment to Clause Four was lost on the voices after which Mr Holland moved an addition to the clause giving the right of appeal from the Court of Arbitration to the Court of Appeal. Divisions on Mr. Holland's amendment was reached at 12.15 and the amendment was lost by 35 to 19 and the clause was passed bv 3G to 19. The Bill was passed at 12.34. ‘