ARBITRATION COURT MEMBERS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 13489, 16 May 1907, Page 6

ARBITRATION COURT MEMBERS.

■. ■ ««»— , THE WORKERS' REPRESENTATIVE. MR. SLATER'S POSITION. ( At the meeting of the- Auckland Trades andLabour Council last evening the question of the election of a workers' representative on the Arbitration Court in November next - was discussed. . Tho matter was brought for- . ward 'in . the: form ■of a letter from the - (Trades and Labour Conference recommend- . ing unions to support the candidature 3of r Mr. J. A. McCullough,-of Christchurch. iA" motion was moved '■'■ to the effect that the j [Council should recommend'the local'unions . lib. support Mr. R. Slater, the present workers' ;• representative,.';,' the seconder . stating 'that he ( thought Mr. Slater should get a fair trial' under the - new president. 1 )({(Mr.' Arthur Rosser pointed out that the ''.Auckland; Council bad already committed • * itself-"' in;" regard to supporting .. Mr.' Slater; having instructed their; delegates: at the l ; Conference to support" him as the worker"' 3 ' representative." , Their delegates,- however, . ' were defeated in putting forward-Mr. : Slater, {i and tho Conference; decided to recommend ' Mr. McCuhough. If the Council now went 'and advised the unions to support Mr. ' Slater it would bo ;. tantamount to kioking 5 1 the Conference overboard. They could, ) I however, arrive at -it in; another way, . and j > that was—seeing that the Auckland Council - had already committed itself in favour' of 5 Mr. Slater being re-electednot to; advise 3; the unions one way, or the other, but to leave it to them to deal with individually. IHo would move an : amendment in that '/direction.;. If -it was adopted the Auckland , Council as a Council, could not 'be accused' ){of kicking Over tho traces because it : could, .'not get its own way. Personally he was just a3 strongly in favour of Mr. Slater as the - workers' representative as over. Ho con- .; sidered that Mr. - Slater had : always fought I;in their interests and that his only fault "in > the past had been .that ho had only one t ..voto as against the other" two. There had, s.however, been a change lately. The men : had succeeded in getting a slight increase- in [wages in the Wair.i miners' award and ailso ;! m .tho Reefton - award, while... the tramway striko cases had been decided in favour of ■;tho men. In- fact, ho felt safo. in; saying jthat they were on the upward. grade as re* igarded wages with tho new president. .-'• ' ' £?i5" I: -/Niddrie seconded the amendment. The motion"was. then withdrawn and the amendment'became the motion. . . _ The president (Mr. H. W. Brookes) slat cd -•that : when..at the Conference ho had stated 1 t 1 he vv< ? u ¥, ror * to his • Council- what j had been decided, but without prejudice to j >'any j remarks which he - had expressed. It . was pointed 'to him while in ; Dunedin that although. the Otago Council . had de- • cided to: support Mr. Hood,: of Dunedin, as ». against .Mr. Slater, on one occasion it wont -/ back ;on its own decision when, the Conferr.enoe decided in favour of - the latter and \toyfy ham. ; v It; was suggested 1 that tho Auckland unions should follow the. lead of the • Cbnforenoe. Ho had . promised *, to -report this and had done so promised IflJn nt ., a ? mpred by Mr. Rosser; -was then put and- carried unanimously. " '