INDUSTRIAL CONCILIATION.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4496, 25 October 1901, Page 6

INDUSTRIAL CONCILIATION.

DISCUSSION IN THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. SOME STRONG COMMENT. In the Legislative Council yesterday when the motion for committal of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration. Amendment Bill was before the Chamber an interesting debate was entered into and some strong comments on concilia, tion business generally were made. The debate was opened by the Hon J. D. Ormond with an attack upon tho Wellington Board of Conciliation. Ho said he desired to sec the evidence adduced be fore the Labour Bills Committee to which was referred the Bill before the Chamber, placed before members. He believed the chairman of the Wellington Board had been heard and also the head of the Do. partment of Labour, and considering tho very serious allegations that had been made against tli© management of the Board in Wellington tho evidence should be before the Chamber. It had been a matter of common report that the business of the Board in Wellington had characterised by very undesirable proceed, ings, that some of tho members of the Board had made the Board’s business their living, and that they had gone outside and tried to make cases for themselves to hear. Thus tho Wellington Board was more employed than any other. He be. lieved there was a good deal of truth in there statements, and if this were so, then thore should be a most searching inquiry instituted by the Government so that tiTe Government might nvake such changes in the constitution of Boards as would prevent these scandals. If Board mem bers went out and tried to induce unions to cite cases for themselves to he&r and thus keep themselves in employment it was time the Government stepped in. So fair as he could learn the Board was against what was intended by the Act. It was supposed to be a Conciliation Board, but if it tided to stir up disputes it was anything but that. These matters were common talk. The return furnished to the Council of industrial disputes beard did not give much encouragement. It show, ed that during the year, for the colony, only twelve cases had been settled by the Conciliation Board? and forty.three had been sent to the Court of Arbitration. He was strongly of. opinion that the-Boards wanted re modelling. He had been told that the Board in Wellington sat on an average four hours a day. Many witness' es wf'YQ kept many days in waiting while tho Board went on in this dilatory way. spinning out the proceedings for the sake of getting pay. Surely there was nooes slty for investigation! ;A manifest im. provement would.be to put the Board un, •dor proper superintendence and the com. rrion opinion was that it should be under the guidance of a Stipendiary Magistrate and not those who were paid according to the cases heard. The Conciliation Boards had cost the colony for the year £lßll 11s lid and of • this amount the Wellington Board had •cost £IOB3 16s sd. That Board was getting cases and dragging them out at the expense of the nn. fortxinates cited to appear. The Arbi, tration Court in the same period cost only £1659 9s 9d. If the Conciliation Boards were to retain their constitution thev should be re.modelled. He would rather see them done fcway with and the Court alone retained $ The. Hon J. Bigg, taking up.-the debate in defence of the Board said it was n ot right in the di 6CUSB * OII of such an import, ant subject to introduce the statements of the <r man in the street.” Such state, ments only came from those who desired to vote against the Boards for their own ends. There was not a tittle of truth in the statements. The measure before the Chamber contained some important alterations, and, he was sorry to say, it struck at the root of the Act of 1894. Many amendments had been made or pro.posed to the original Act and before a principle had had a fair trial it had been amended. Amendments had been intre. duced when Parliament .had no idea of the effect they wftuld have, and the present Bill contained 'provisions of the most dangerous character. , In the Act of 1894 trades unions had the right of initiating a dispute, but under tho amendment a trades union might be made liable to an award but could not-initiate a disptjte. If trades unions were to bo included they should have power to initiate a dispute. Then tliero were provisions for a special board. Under the law at present, if all parties agreed then a special board was set up, but in the amendment it was pro. posed’ that either party might demand a special board, Now, it was well Known that if employees took an active part in. disputes, they were, in many cases, dis. charged or boycotted by the employers, and ho had a list of ‘such cases. While, this was so it was not likely tUiH employ, ees were going to take part in any special Board of Conciliation. The result would be that the union would refuse to elect or nomikite representatives, and the Act provided that representatives on special boards should be experts in the special trade. The provisions in- the Bill he viewed with most alarm, were those deal, ing with tho extension alid limitation of awards of the Court. In section 13, the Court was empowered with respect to any award in force at the coming into opera, tion of the principal Act to, upon notice to any trade union, industrial union, in. dustrial association or employer within the district and engaged in the industry to which the award applies, not an original pfrty thereto, extend; such award! and its provison to such trade , union, in. dustrial union, industrial'association or employer. This was a most extraordinary • position. In clause 13, subclause 4, the Court was given power to. in any award made by it, limit the operation of such award to any city, town or district being within or part of any industrial district. Then by another section the Court might extend an award to any district. Having limited its award the Court might extend it again and then limit it again. IT* 6 Bill was absolutely dangerous to the prm. ciple of the Act, and he could not con. ceive how it would be possible for any Court to administer such an £ct. Some clauses were wut of-harmony with others and the draughtsmanship was simply mil From the point of view of draughtsman, ship the Bill should never have come before a body like the Council. Since tho Hon W. P. Reeves had left there had not been a Minister of Labour except it were the men. Suggestions were made outside and adopted in the House and not a mem. her in Parliament knew the real state of the law. Clause 21 was an attempt\to abolish the ‘ Conciliation Beards tin an indirect manner, as it gave power to either party to refer a case to the Court and as a result all would go to the Court. The Court could not do its own wora and the work of the Boards as well; The Boards reduced the work of the Court to a minimum. He asked who was fespon. sible for the unsatisfactory nature of dig. putea? The employers were. One in. stances of-this was in the wharf labourers dispute. The employers allowed the case to go on for three weeks and then raised a technical point and had the case thrown out. This was only one case of what-the employers were doing to bring the Act into contempt. ■ If' the employers were not spurred on by the newspaper press there would be more conciliation than now.. The papers had never lost a chance to stir up contempt of the Boards, and he said this with a full sense of respon. sibility. Every quibble in argument and every frivolous remark was published. Were hon gentlemen aware that all the prtn. cipal disputes in the colony were brought to Wellington? (No! No!) And the awards here were copied in other places. (No!) The constitution of the Boards might not be as nerfect as possible and he would suggest that the numbers of members should be reduced to three instead of five. That danse providing for a majority or members at a meeting of a union refer ring a case instead of all the members of a union was a very good one. especially in the case of federated unions. In one case he knew of employees had been dis. charged for some remarks made to an em. pioyer and they had then become a hur den on , the union for a long time until a case was brought before the Board. But for the action of the'Legislative .Council in cutting put certain amendments this would never have happened and the con. stint punishment of employees by employ, ei” would be prevented. Clause 20 pro. Tiding for cancellation of registration of defunct unions was a wise provision.

Regarding the statement of the Minister of Labour that the Act was "being ridden to death,'’ his reply was that whoever said that dirl not understand the working of the Act. It was indiscreet for any mem. her of Parliament to make such a state, meat. An lion member; It was dangerous. Hon J. Rigg: Well, he might have been misinformed. Continuing, Mr Rigg said that tho newspapers alternately praised and condemned tho Act. They said it was good ns long as it was not used. Their logic was the same as that of tho roan who gave his son a beautiful new gun and told him he might go out upon the hills, but he was not to fire it oft or ho might hit something. Tne Act was doing its work and doing it well. The work of the Courts wbuld become lighter as time weut on. The Hon G. McLean said the whole Bill in tho Hon J. Kigg’s opinion was had. If bo why did he.not move at the second read ing that the Bill should be deferred for six months? His speech had been chiefly a defence of the Wellington Board. Thu Labour Bills Committee had heard evi. deuce. The whole of oue morning had been taken up by hearing what the chair, man of the Wellington Board had done. He might be a good business man, but he had no ability to conduct the Board's de. liberations. ' An hon member'; That is libel! The Hon G. McLean said it was not libel. Tho Chairman has said, "We sit from 10.30 a.m. to 12.30 and from 2.30 to 4.30.” If that was the way the Board went on it did not work very hard. It had taken three weeks in one dispute. As regarded special boards, if the unions would not nominate representatives, by all means let the case go to the Court. Disputes would seldom go past the Boards if they were managed in tho proper way. Clause 21 gave either of tho parties to a dispute powe r to refer dis. putes direct to the Court, and this was surely right. If the consent of both part ies was required, such a provision would be a dead letter. The Hon vv-. T. Jennings, said it was not correct that the majority of cases from other parts of the colony came to Wellington lor settlement. The Hon J. Rigg nad denied that any member of th» Wellington Board had tried to stir up strife so that cases could be brought be • fore the Board. The hon gentleman must surely have known what was hap, poning. The Hon J. Bigg: I never heard of it. The Hon W. T. Jennings, continuing, said that one of the members of the Wellington Board had been disappointed,with an award of the-Court of-Aroitration. and he had induced several members of the Typographic;!! Society to call a special meeting of the society with the object of trying to get another case before the Board. To the credit of their own good sense, the society .had refused, and the member of the Board had had hardly a follower. This was the case he referred to, and which the hon gentleman must have known of, though he. had said he did not. The Hon J. Rigg: I rise to a point of order. X have several times denied knowledge of the case, and know nothing about it, and yet the hon gentleman has reiterated that I do. The Hon W. T. Jennings said he would accept tho denial, but the matter had been of "such common talk that he dad thought Mr Rigg must have known of it. It had been published in the papers. Hon W. C. Walker having interrupted to say "Nobody reads the papers,” Mr Jen. nings proceeded to remark that section 13, dealing with limiting the award, had been criticised by Mr Rigg, but it was a very wise clause.’ It was impossible to make one award applicable to the whole colony, as conditions were different in different parts of the colony. He generally referred to the different clauses. The Hoh J. M. Twomey said Mr Rigg had challenged members to produce a tittle of evidence to show that, any mem, bel‘ of the Board in Wellington had trieu to stir up strife, but there was the fact that tjie Wellington Board’s expense* amounted to about £IOOO out of something like £IBOO for the colony. It had sac more days than all the rest put together. The Hon J. Rigg: That is why tney got more pay. The Hon J. M. Twomey: Yes, ana that is why they sat for four hours a day. (Laughter.) Continuing, M r Twomey said he considered M r Rigg had made a great mistake in defending the Wellington Board. Mr Twomey warned the workers that, by electing such men they weVe destroying the Act itself. The workers, when they possessed such euor. mous power, should be careful and not use it harshly. That had been done, and that was what the Premier had referred to when ho had said the Act was being ridden to death. He asked why some of the advantages gained by .workmen and townspeople should not be, extended to farmers- As the cost of production was being increased by these laws, so the tariff should he increased to enable the colony to produce its own food. Protec. tion for the farmers f ought to be the policy of the Labour party. At this stage the debate was adjourned till to.day. ___