TRADES COUNCILS AND LEGISLATION.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 5734, 1 November 1905, Page 2

TRADES COUNCILS AND LEGISLATION.

(To the Editor, “\.Z. Times.”)

. Sir,—Lnder the designation of “Sessional Notes,” your issue of this morning reports that the Labour Dills Committee of tho House of Representatives had struck out clause 1-1 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act Amendment Bill, providing for applications for entoroement of awards being heard by Stipendiary Magistrates, and this yon assert was done at the instigation of tho employers and Trades and Labour Councils. As one slightly in-teret-ed in the work of the latter, permit mo to say that the report is a misrepresentation of the views of the councils of the colony on this particular aspect of th-p industrial question. In order to expedite the hearing of such applications the conference 0f,1904 passed a resolution urging the Government to amend tho act so us to give .Magistrates the power referred to, and the conference of this year, of which I had the honour to be chairman, passed the following resolution That the Government should bo still urged to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to enable Stipendiary Magistrates to adjudicate for breaches of awards or industrial agreements; that experts may sit with Alagistrates on tho application of cither of the parties interested, or that, in the alternative, two Arbitration Courts l)o . set up, one for tho North Island and one for tho South.

A deputation was appointed to lay the conference proposals before the Premier, and the writer was deputed to bring the amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act under bis notice, and the above amendment was discussed fully with Ijlr Scddou, although, as usual, no definite pronouncement ivas made by him. In view of this, hotv could the Wellington Council honourably and consistently support tho striking out of a clause in the bill which it has been urging the Government to pass into law for some considerable time? I api not cognisant of what the employers did, hut I am perfectly safe in saying that no such evidence .was. given by the councils. In respect to the Workers’ Compensation for Accidents Act, the councils do not oppose the special privilege extended to wharf labourers, under tho last amendment act, but on the contrary aro endeavouring to secure for them and others full pay from tho date of accident to the date of recovery, as will bo seen from the following resolution carried by this year’s conference, and which was also brought under the .notice of tho Premier by the deputation mentioned, viz.: —“That the Worker's’ Compensation for Accidents Act ho amended to provide that an injured worker shall receive full -wages from the date of accident up to and including the date of recovery, such wages to be at the same rate as that received by such injured .worker prior and up to tbo timo of the accident.” Although strongly believing in these propositions, I have refrained from touching on the justice or injustice of such, but quote tho facts, which I trust you will place before the public.— I am, etc., W. T. YOUNG, ■ Sec. Seamen’s Union. October 27th.

[There has been no misrepresentation whatever in regard to this matter. Mr J. F. Arnold, chairman of the Labour Bills Committee of tho House of Representatives, assures us that a deputation consisting of Messrs Andrew Collins, W. H. Wcstbrooke, and Blaokie, from tho Wellington Trades and Labour Council, gave evidence before the Labour Bills Committee on this question. In their opening remarks tho deputation made it clear that they represented not only tho 'Wellington Council, but the whole of the Trades and Labour Councils of tho colony, and that they spoke on behalf, and voiced tlib_ opinions, of those bodies in tho desire to have clause 14 struck out. Tho clause was accordingly struck out by the Labour Bills Committee, and it was deleted from the bill by tho House by 40 votes to 17.— Ed., “N.Z. Times.”]