ARBITRATION LAW

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXX, 21 May 1936, Page 11

ARBITRATION LAW

BILL PASSED BY THE COUNCIL COMPULSORY UNIONISM ATTEMPT TO DELETE CLAUSE DEFEATED (From “The Mail’s” Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, This Day. The Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act Amendment Bill was passed by the Legislative Council yesterday. •The second reading debate was completed shortly before f> o’clock, and instead of adjourning then as usual, the Council continued on with the committee stage. Several clauses were attacked. but tlie measure was not amended, except for the deletion of one clause by the Loader, the Hon. M. Fagan. Clause 18, which provides for compulsory unionism, was retained by 18 votes to 13—the closest vote yet recorded this session. The committee stage was completed at 5.40 and the Bill was read a third time and passed at 5.45 by 25’votes to 7

On the resumption of the secondreading debate, support for the Bill in principle was given by the Hon. V. Ward (Wellington), who nevertheless expressed dislike for compulsory unionism. He favoured the basic wage and agreed that single and married men should receive the same wage for the same work, but said the basic rate should not include allowances for children, who should he otherwise provided for out of some national fund. He did not oppose the principle of the shorter working week, but lie thought it too early to introduce the 40-hour week, the application of which should he deferred for a year or two to enable industry first to adjust itself to other features of the Government’s labour legislation. The onus should not he on the employer alone to show that the 40-hour week was impracticable, lmt the workers should also be required to adduce evidence to prove that a reduction of hours was possible and desirable. He fully approved compulsory' arbitration, provided it was compulsory on both sides, and that both parties were made to suffer equally in event of breaches of awards. COMPULSORY ARBITRATION I lie Hon. R. Masters (Taranaki) said lie favoured organised unionism, as it was hotter that employers should negotiate with recognised bodies of men in an official way, rather than individually or in small sections. “1 approve of the 40-hour week where it is practicable, and I also approve the principle of the basic wage,” he said. There was divided opinion even in the ranks ol organised labour as to the desirability’' of compulsory arbitration. The legislation in find it been given longer trial, might have proved more successful in re-establishing industry than appeared at present. He found himself in a difficulty' as far as the present Bill was concerned. In RM-I the Hon. T. O’Byrne (Southland), one of the most successful union secretaries, had stated that the feeling be-

tween the workers and the employers was of the kindliest possible relationship, and the workers had lost nothing beneficial to them as a result of two years’ experience of the former Government's 1932 legislation. Mr O’Byrne: “Bead the rest of my speech on the question.”

Mr Masters said the Chamber would recognise his difficulty in view of the statement of such an authority as Mr O’Byrne. The late Mr 11. E. Holland had condemned compulsory arbitration and Mr Janies Roberts, of the Alliance of Labour, said in March of this year that the workers could not expect fair treatment from the Arbitration Court. The alliance, moreover, had unanimously passed a motion at its annual conference condemning the court. It was therefore apparent that not only the employers and the public but also industrial labour was divided on the question of compulsory arbitration. Replying to the Hon. Mr Eagan, Mr Masters claimed that the 1932 legislation had brought about industrial peace, a reduction in the number of working days lost through industrial disputes, and a lower cost of living. Since 1032, moreover, 287 new industries had been started, employing 10,500 more workers, spending £1,200,000 more in wages, and £500,000 in new capital had been invested in Industry. Turning again to the basic wage, Mr Masters reaffirmed his support in principle, but contended that the proposals in the Bill in that connection were unsound. A direct charge was placed on a particular industry, and industry was to be called upon to perform a. social service that properly should be a charge on the nation. The Government was burdening industry with the maintenance of 500,000 children unborn, and 103,000 wives who were not yet married. The, basic wage should be fixed on the basis of a married man, and the family allowance should be extended to take care of the children. COMPLAINT OE “WRONG IMPRESSION” The If.on. T. O’Byrne, in a personal explanation, claimed that Mr Masters had created a wrong impression in reading to the Chamber only portion of a speech lie (Mr O’Byrne) had made on industrial relations. He began to read, but was stopped by Mr Masters, who contended that his‘colleague was

reading from a diU'crent place altogether. Mr Speaker informed Mr O’Byrne that he would have opportunity to reply later on. Mr O’Byrne subsequently read on “from where Mr Masters knocked off” and showed that he “would never forgive a Government that had taken from the workers their right to go to the Arbitration Court.” ,

Exception to Mr Master’s suggestion that industry and labour were becoming used to the 1932 legislation and satisfactorily accommodating themselves to it was taken by the Hon. T. Bloodworth (Auckland), who said the leason why industrial disputes were fewer was that the workers had the alternatives of accepting whatever agreements they could arrange or face unemployment. It was not a fact that the workers were growing accustomed to doing without compulsory arbitration. Individual opinons in movements did not count, but it was the collective opinion that mattered, and that opinion was embodied in the Bill. Mr Bloodworth said lie disliked the chi use providing for compulsory unionism, as he disapproved compulsion in any form. One could not make a trade unionist by Act of Parliament.

Replying to the debate the Hon. Mr Eagan said it had been asked why provision had not been made in fixing the basic rate for workers with more than three children, but a point had to be fixed somewhere. The Government had legislation in mind to provide for more generous motherhood endowment, and for the encouragement of larger families. Answering Mr Masters. Mr Eagan said the reason why industrial troubles were fewer since '1932 was that the workers knew that unless they accepted the employers’ terms they would get only the agreement placed on the factory wall by the employer. The fact could not be avoided that since the late Government’s legislation no fewer than 97 awards had been cancelled. The second reading was agreed to on the voices. IN COMMITTEE: In the committee stage tile Hon. \Y. Perry (Wellington) unsuccessfully moved an amendment to provide that the Arbitration Court may amend its general order fixing the basic wage'at intervals of 12 months in place of the six months provided in the Bill. The lion. \V, Hayward (Canterbury) moved the deletion of the clause providing for compulsory unionism. He was supported by Mr Perry, who contended that it restricted the liberty of the individual and was fundamentally wrong ill principle. Mr Hayward described it as a provision that had caused consternation and anxiety throughout the country. The Hon. L. M. Isilt (Canterbury) also condemned the clause. Replying, the Leader said a worker who declined to join a union and yet was willing to participate in the benefits the union had secured for the employees in the industry concerned would Lie rightly considered by every member of the Council to he a mean person. A division was called for, the voting being as follows For the amendment (13) : Alexander, Allen, Burns. Carrington, Davis, Hayward, Isitt, McLeod. Masters. Perry, Russell. Snodgrass Ward. Against (18) : Eagan, Briudle, Buddo, Conelly, Cottner, Dovle. Dye, Goodall, Hunter, Lark. McCullough, Mclntyre, Martin, Mawhete, O’Byrne, Robbins, Trevethick.