CONCILIATION BOARDS

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4306, 15 March 1901, Page 3

CONCILIATION BOARDS

PARTISANSHIP OP MEMBERS. 1 SOME PLAIN SPEAKING. PHES3 ASSOCIATION. AUCKLAND, March 14. In tho course of the proceedings of the Conciliation Board this morning very plain talk was used by some of the members. The dispute in the carpentering trade was under discussion and members of the Board had been arguing with the masters and representatives of the union upon the advisability of making further mutual concessions to save reference of the matter' to tho Arbitration Court. The Chairman (the Rev A. H. Collins) chanced to remark.that it would be wiser if members of the Board would reserve their argument until in committee. Mr Alison, a member of tb'e Board: I claim, Mr Chairman, that you bad no right to make such a remark. It is offensive and was intended to be offensive. The chaiiman said they were there to arbitrate and not to champion one side or another—not to fan the flame by making suggestions or arguing. Mr Alison said he thought both sides would say that he was not championing any party, but that on the contrary his remarks tended towards conciliation. “Is not onr proper position ” (asked Mr Alison) "to try and conciliate? Yet lam taken to task for trying to do so. I wish to say, sir, as you have spoken offensively, that you show on every occasion both publicly and in committee snob one-sidedness and such sympathy with one side only that it makes it most difficult work for us to. secure a fair award." The chairman: I am sorry Mr Alison should say that. We are not here to aot as advocates for either side. Mr Alison: Who. is acting as advocate? You, sir, are the only one so acting.

Mr Bagnall; I take it we are here to advocate the particular interests of the aides wo represent. Mr. Alison: I should like to know, sir, whether you consider a, member of the Board has no right to make any suggestion which he thinks may tend to bring the parties together? . The chairman said that was quite another th ing. What he objected to was that both sides had been advocating the merits of the respective sides they represented.

Mr Fawcns said he understood the chairman's remarks to apply to both sides. Ho admitted that he offended in, this respect, but only in defence of men. He agreed with the chairman that the Board should sit there as Impartial judges and thresh out matters in committee.

Mr Bagnall did not agree with Mr Fawcns. Ho was there as a partisan to represent one side of the ease and he intended to- do so.

Mr Mison said if he wore not a.partisan in committee it would be a bad job for the employers, but he contended no partisanshin had been shown.

The chairman said he took no side at all. His only aim was to bring the two parties in a dispute together. He considered matters should he argued m committee. After further discussion th© Board decided to adjourn the case until next Thursday afternoon.