LABOUR LEGISLATION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXV, Issue 10900, 3 November 1898, Page 5

LABOUR LEGISLATION.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT.

AN AUCKLAND PROTEST.

At the Chamber of Mines yesterday a conference botween manufacturers and employers and the Auckland Chamber of Commerce was held, with the object of discussing the Arbitration and Conciliation Act Amendment Bill, now before the House, and the Master and Apprentices Act. Mr. John Roid (vicepresident of the Chamber of Commerce) presided, and there was a largo and representative attendance of manufacturers and employers, while the Chamber was well represented.

The Chairman said the meeting had been called by the Chamber of Commerce in reference to the requests of employers, to discuss the provisions of various Acts now before Parliament, and asked for any motions or speeches dealing with the subjects mentioned. He understood that one of the Acts proposed to be discussed—the Master and Apprenticeshad been dropped by the Government, so thatnarrowed the discussion clown to tho other— the proposed amendment of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Mr. T. Hodgson expressed his pleasure at seeing such a largo attendance, which showed that employers took an interest in the matter, and moved:— this large and representative meeting of manufacturers and employers earnestly desire tho Auckland Chamber of Commerce to communicate to Mr. Oliver, M.L.C., as chairman of the Labour Bills Committee of the Legislative Council, its strong protest against the principle underlying the proposed amendments to the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, which constitute an iniquitous usurpation of the liberty of the individual and are inimical to tho best interests of industrial peace." In speaking to the motion, the movor said the object of tho amendment was apparently to force men who wore not unionists at the present time to become members of unions. So far as the speaker was concerned, the question of whether workmen were unionists or not was never discussed; the question was never asked, but who were considered the best men, irrespective of unions, were employed. All minds had been made free, and as the employee had tho right to work for whom he liked, when employment from various sources was available, the employer should have the right to employ whom ho liked. To compel employers to give the preference to members of unions was to interfere with their libenty, which would inconvenience them considerably, if it did not result in loss. Provision had boon made for lock-outs or strikes, but no provision had boon made for the protection of trade, and if this sort of thing was to continue they would find that a loss of tradp would result. At tho preeont timo it was difficult enough to get competent workmen, and yet it was proposed to further limit the field, and to compel Iho employer to give the preference to unionists. As he had said, tho question as to whether a workmen was a member of a union or not did not weigh with Ine speaker; he endeavoured to obtain the best men, whether unionists or not; tho employers had no desire to interfere with the liberty of their employee*, but they had a perfect right to he allowed the same liberty as the men, and to employ whom they liked. If tho amendment became law, and an employer employed non-union men as against available union mon, they would probably be brought linto the Arbitration Court. Mr. A. 11. Clarke seconded the motion. _ Mr. W. W. Philson supported the motion, and said that an ablo leading article on the subject line! appeared in tho columns of the New Zealand Herald of October 27. Mr. Fhilson read extracts from tho article in question, which stated that the proposed amendment enabled (ho Court to direct that membors of an industrial union should bo employed in preference to non-members, and where an employer claimed that he was justified in giving tho preference to non-members, tlio question should bo decided by tho Court. Tlie article proceeded:—"lt is a curious position for tho Government to take up, this persecuting all men who do not choose to become members of trades unions. Why should not an employer lie left at liberty to employ tho best men? Is tho preference given 'o meniliers of trade unions because they are so organised that; their votes are more etnily manipulated? It ie sought to be onacted that it shall lie doomed to bo a 'broach of duty' on tlio pact of an omployor if he discharges any worker by reason of tho fact that !ia is a member of a trades union. The broach of duty shall ho deemed to constitute grounds for an industrial dispute, and thorefore may be brought before tlie Court, and, moreover, tin burden of proof is to rest upon the employer, who must satisfy tho Court that the discharge was not because the man was a member of the trades union." It was estimated that there were between 90,000 on! 100.000 workmen in (ho colony, and ot- these but 12.000 worn members of unions. If the employers were to bo restricted in thft'r choice, the result would lip that workmen who wore not unionists would be driven In become members of unions, and, in the speiker's oninion, that was the real object of the amendment.

Mr. C. Rnnsnn said Hint in the recent casp against the Northern Steamship Company thorn had lwen a hard fitclit on the part of tlio unionists to obtain a pronouncement fnun tho Court that unionists were to havo the prcfWenro ovor non-unionists, all else being ccual. The company hail fought this noint hrrause, so far ns they wore concerned, it tiicl not matter whether tho men were unionists nr not: thoy employed tho best mon Ihev could obtain. Tn tlio award given by the Court it was distinctly stated that tliore should not l>o any discrimination. It was a. most arbitrary proceeding to say that a company should piiia nvor Rood and faithful employees, and to practically drive these men from the colony, merely because they were not unionist?. ' The motion was then put to the meetp.* and carried imanimonsly, and tho decision arrived at was telegraphed, to tlie chairman of tiic Labour Rills Committee. A voto of thanks to tho chair terminated the proceeding.