“EMPLOYERS’ JUSTICE”

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 8295, 5 December 1912, Page 1

“EMPLOYERS’ JUSTICE”

DICTATE OWN TERMS DEFINITION BY MR JUSTICE HIGGINS. MELBOURNE, November 28. When tne tramway arbitration case was resumed beioro :Ur J ustico Higgins to-day, Mr Frew, who appealed tor the i-risbaue Tramway Company, addressed tho court. He remarked that a witness had stated that if members of tho association went to tho Arbitration Court they would get sympathy. hik iionor • ion cium-uc. deal with iho conditions of labor without sympathy. You liavo simply been dealing with “ dry ax dust" law cases. You are dealing here with arbitration cases, in which 1 have to make laws. 1 may be right or wrong. Mr Frew : Oh, i thought you had to settle disputes. His Honor: Yes, and in so doing I have to say what the conditions of the agreement shall bo. Mr Frew: 1 take it that your Honor is not here to lay down laws for the future. . His Honor: You can take what you like. , Mr Frew: If you say you have sympathy with the employees His Honor: And also with the employers. , , Mr Frew: -Tho employers ask for justice, hot for sympathy. His Honor: Anti justice to you means dictating your own terms. Mr Frew referred to statements made to the company by some of tho men, and this brought the comment from his Honor that some of the witnesses were “ stuffed.” Mr Frew: AVhy Iwo do not speak to Item. ... His Honor: Those fellows are like sheep driven into a pen, and, having them in the pen, you ask them-loading questions. I say that you “stuffed thorn. , Mr Frew: I strongly object to that statement. - _ . . His Honor: It was “ stuffing into the mouths of men who wore at your mercy. _ Mr Frew: If it .appears to be so, l say it was done quite in ignorance. His Honor: I will accept that explanation; , , ’ Mr Frew argued that as the company had no member of the claimant body in its employ it could not bo considered a party to tho dispute. His Honor: Supposing that the court should come to the conclusion that the only way to protect unionists in Brisbane is to order preference to unionists in all future employment? 1 take tho view ' that these men were wrongfully dismissed. Suppose, I say, preference to unionists- is the only Frew: I hope your Honor will think before you give preference. His Honor: I have been thinking of it for months. What is there in the case that I should nob give preference? I have never ordered preference yet, and I should be loth to order it, but if 1 come to the conclusion that your company has brought things to such a pass in Brisbane that unionists have no protection, I may have to order preference in Brisbane. _ , , Mr Frew asked his Honor to look at the position from the point of view that the claim was an extravagant one, and not a bona fide claim, but one made simply for the purpose of rushing the respondent down to this court. In this case nothing was known until the shot was fired. His Honor: What is the shot?

Mr Frew: The claim. His Honor: Mr Badger got a courteous letter from an oficer of the organisation, and did not answer it. The Act is to encourage unionism. Mr Badger said he discredits unionism, and thus he disobeys the Act. I do not think any other of the respondents has acted as the Brisbane Company has. Mr Frew: Fairly. TTi's Honor: No, unfairly. Tour wages were the lowest in Australasia, excepting those at Hobart. For some reason or another the ■ wages in Brisbane in many industries are lower than elsewhere.

Mr Frew: The cost of living is less. His Honor: No wonder Mr Badger wishes ns to leave Brisbane alone. Motormen were paid only 6s 2d a day of eight hours until the Wages Board came along. Mr Frew: Oh, no; there were improvements " all the way along.” His Honor: They must have been mighty small improvements.