MR. J. M. SHERA AND THE CONCILATION ACT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVII, Issue 11542, 29 November 1900, Page 6

MR. J. M. SHERA AND THE CONCILATION ACT.

TO THE EDITOR. —As you have published in jf columns a letter by Mr. Shera, in which » used intemperate language, affirming i t certain of my statements about this Act 0 without " the ghost or a shade of the sha 7 of truth in them," and that some are " a >- lutely and utterly false, without' an iot )f foundation in fact," I trust you will give 10 space for a reply. Were it a matter merely between me id Mr. Shera, I would not trouble you, recause it is a recognised canon of control sy that when one of the disputants forgets niself, as Mr. Shera does, and in effect lis . his opponent a liar, discussion is usees. Mr. . Holyoake says: " Liar is a favoil fce epithet with the lowest class of oppone 3. It puts a man who uses it out of any co t. . No court of honour could adjudicate un it. It should be referred a court of scai igers, whose business it would be to rem e it. The term is not a matter of taste; i s a breach of the peace, and would be resen d by a blow, a duel, or contempt, which wo d keep him inexorably at a distance who ukl But this is a matter involving a gut public question, which affects the wHe colony, and interests other countries, hole I will discuss it publicly, leaving your spassionate readers to judge whether my a 3gations were true. I I affirmed that " the Conciliation Act id been used as an instrument of political pati nage to labour," meaning, of course, organ id labour, as everyone would infer from he context of the article whence the expresan is taken. _ _ Mr. Shera says that it "is absolutely id utterly false, without an iota of foundattn in fact." Is it really? Let us see. I 411 take only one instance: that of prefereie of labour to trade unionists, which Mr. Sh|a surely forgets or ignores. • I This has been a very burning question. K. few months ago the Wellington Employer Association joined with the Canterbury Ea ployers' Association in bringing before tn Supreme Court, and then before the Anpea Court, a case to restrain the Arbitration Couri from granting preference to unionists. Th< case went against the employers in botra Courts. ' The following opinion of the Judges will no doubt be read with much interest: — In the course of his judgment the Chief Justice stated that non-unionists were altogether outside the Act. They had been excluded. A non-associated workman had no status under this statute. Could the Court declare that a non-associated workman could only be employed if there were no unionist workmen of ability and qualifications? Tho statute must be obeyed, however contrary it might be to what was deemed natural justice. The status of individuals might be changed and the rights of persons affected, and there was no appeal to any other Court in _ New Zealand. Then the disputes must be in reference to "industrial matters," which were duly defined in the statute. The definition of " industrial matters" seemed to His Honor to include every kind of possible dispute that could arise between an employer and his workmen. The Act, in effect, abolished " contract" and restored " status." _ The only way the Act could be rendered inoperative was by workmen not associating or not joining any union, for, as had been said, the statute could not deal with unassociated workmen. No doubt the statute, by abolishing "contract" and restoring "status," might be a reversal to a state of things that existed before our industrial era, as Maine and other jurists had pointed out. The power of the Legislature was sufficient to revert to this prior state. The only question the Appeal Court had to determine was whether the words of the Act were clear enough to show that the Court of Arbitration had the power claimed for it. In sub-clause 6 power was given to the Court to deal with the status of workmen. He was of opinion that, having this power, the Court had power to declare that trade unionists should have a preference over workmen not belonging to a trade union. In the case of an associated workman tho Arbitration Court could give the preference if' it chose.

Mr. Justice Williams said: If the Arbitration Court had jurisdiction to consider a dispute, it also had jurisdiction to decide it in such a manner as it considered just. The Act conferred no status on a workman who was not a member of a union. It was not intended that they should be represented, nor did it contemplate that a decision giving preference to unionists should affect any legal right of non-unionist workmen. The nonunionist had no legal right to demand employment. He could sell his labour at what price and on what terms he chose, provided he could find an employer able and willing to accept his terms; but he had no right to demand that there should be an employer able and willing to accept his terms. That is to say, this Act has conferred political favours or patronage on organised labour, favours and patronage deemed worth an immense deal to the labour party. But I have always protested against it, and will protest against it as a gross injustice to nonunionists. As well might the party now in the Parliamentary majority pass a law to prevent Roman Catholic tradesmen from selling their wares until Protestants have first sold theirs, as prevent non-unionist workmen from selling their labour until trade unionists have first sold theirs.

Next, I said "that defeated Parliamentary candidates were consoled with seats on the Conciliation Boards." I mentioned no names. Mr. Shera put the cap on, and he would not wear it if it did not fit. On December 5, 18S6, the citizens of Auckland considered Mr. Shera an unfit and improper person to represent them in Parliament. " The Sorrows of Satan" could have been only like a fleabite compared to the sorrows of Shera. when he found that the electors had placed him ninth, and last but one on the poll, whilst they had given the winners 7192, 6298, and 6004 votes respectively, and to him only 609. Subsequently Mr. Shera was appointed to the Conciliation Board, and if he was not "consoled" by it, that perhaps was not so much the fault of a compassionate Government as of his own exaggerated notion of his just deserts.

But who appointed Mr. Shera? He signs himself thus: "J. M. Shera, ex-member of the Conciliation Board, appointed to represent the employers." The Government did so without the consent or concurrence of the employers. He designates himself in a way calculated, probably unintentionally, to mislead. I now leave your readers to decide whether the Conciliation Act has been used as " an instrument of political patronage to labour," and whether " defeated Parliamentary candidates were consoled with seats on the Conciliation Boards."—l am, etc., F. G. EWINGTON.