ARBITRATION BILL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21598, 19 March 1932, Page 12

ARBITRATION BILL

LABOUR’S PROLONGED ATTACK CLOSURE FREQUENTLY APPLIED i ! (Per United Press 'Association.) WELLINGTON, March 18. The frequent ringing of the division bells and numerous applications of the closure characterised the all-night sitting of the House, urgency having been accorded the passage of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill. The committee stage was still in progress at 8.30 this morning. The clause which provides that the terras of settlement effected by a Conciliation Council are to operate as an industrial agreement was under discussion when the Telegraph Office closed at 2 a.m. Mr C. H. Chapman (Wellington Central) moved an amendment to enable the terms to be regarded as an award on application by the assessors. The closure was applied, and the amendment was defeated, the clause being adopted by 38 Totes to 23. Mr P. Fraser (Wellington Central) then moved that the acting chairman (Mr J. A. Nash) should leave the chair on the ground that the rights of the minority had not been maintained by the chairman, only two speakers having spoken on Mr' Chapman’s amendment. The Prime Minister (Mr G. W. Forbes) protested against remarks which he had heard in the lobby from Labour member* as he was going out for a cup of tea to the effect that he would soon be brought back. He complained that he had actuallv been brought back into the Chamber by the call for a quorum. He added that if that sort of thing was going to happen the members oh the Government benches would have to insist on the closure in the interests of the rights of the majority.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr j±. E. Holland) contended that Mr Forbes had moved the closure solely in a fit of pique. Mr Holland, in turn, insisted that the rights of the minority and of fair speech must be maintained. The motion was rejected by 38 votes to 23. Wl:"a the clause was submitted empowering any employer or trade union to seek exemption from an industrial agreement within one month of its notification being received, Mr J. A. Lee (Grey Lynn) interjected, in the course of a speech by the Minister of Labour (Mr A. Hamilton) : "You are using this clause to break •wards.” Mr Hamilton: No.

Mr Lee: You are telling a lie. The Chairman of Committees (Mr Smith): Do I understand you accuse the Minister of lying? Mi Lee: Yes, deliberately lying. Mr Smith: I hope you realise the seriousness of the statement.

Mr Lee: Yes; I -withdraw. The clause was eventually passed by 38 votes to 23.

After the clause dealing with the conditions under which disputes might be referred to the Arbitration Court had been discussed for some time, the closure was applied, and an amendment moved by Mr R. M'Keen (Wellington South), seeking to provide that the vote of a majority of the assessors should be sufficient to refer a dispute to the court was rejected by 37 votes to 22.

Mr D. G. Sullivan (Avon) moved that where parties were unable to agree that the matter in dispute should be referred to the court the Conciliation commissioners should be empowered to refer it in the public interest to the court for settlement. This was defeated by 37 votes to 22. The clause was adopted by 37 votes to 22. At 7.15 a.m. Mr Forbes suggested an adjournment for breakfast. The Leader of the Opposition submitted that an adjournment till 2.50 p.m. would meet the wishes of the House. Chorus of voices: No. “All right,” said Mr Holland; “we will go right on, then.” The committee went on to consider the clause making provision for reference back to a Conciliation Council of disputes in respect of which an award had not been made by the court at the passing of the Act. The Leader of the Opposition said this would mean commencing proceedings de novo, and would be a senseless duplication of the work. The clause wasc adopted after the closure had been applied. The Minister moved an amendment to the next clause, which provides for reviews of existing awards. The amendment stipulated that any award that had been in existence for more than six months and had an unexpired term of more than three months at the date of application could be brought under review and a new award made in lieu thereof if asked for. Mr Sullivan: That makes the clause worse. The Minister: The clause goes further than it did previously. The Minister’s amendment was adopted, end the clause passed. The next clause considered related to payment on a piecework basis, Mr J. W. Munro (Dunedin North) moved an amendment stipulating that the piecework rate should not be less than 20 per cent, above the award rate. He said this would safeguard the workers against sweating conditions. Mr Munro submitted a further amendment with the object of stipulating that negotiations respecting terms of agreement for employment on a piecework basis should take place between the employer and the union representing the workers, instead of between employers and individual workers, as set out by the Bill, He contended that if employers were placed in the position of being able to bargain with individual employees they would be able to force down conditions lower and lower. No worker’s likelihood would be safe, because an employer at any time might bring along a man prepared to work at a sweated rate. Messrs W. E. Parry (Auckland Central) and R. Semple (Wellington East) rigorously appealed to the Prime Minister to accept the latter amendment, declaring that unless some such protection were afforded the workers might be forced to take drastic action. They asserted that they would unhesitatingly back up such action against the abuse which would be possible under the clause as it stood. The Leader of the Opposition also appealed to the Prime Minister to accept Mr Munro’s amendment, pointing out that under economic pressure the workers might be forced to accept inhuman terms. Efforts to amend the clause failed, and it was thereupon adopted. Labour members continued to demand * division at every stage. The clause providing for the appointment of industrial committees was passed, with the result that at 1 p.m. there were only three more to be passed to bring about completion of the committee stage. The clause providing that awards should not be applicable to relief works was resisted, Mr A. S. Richards (Roskill) moving as an amendment that the wages and conditions of relief workers should be determined by the Arbitration Court. Labour’s attack on the Bill was continued throughout the day. The lengthy sitting was rendered even more strenuous than usual because no adjournments for refreshment were taken, and applications of the closure and divisions gave members little opportunity for rest. The closure was applied during the discussion on the clause stipulating that awards should not be applicable to relief works under the Unemployment Act. The amendment was defeated and the clause was passed. There was a brisk debate on the clause relating to awards affecting the employment of musterer.s in the Canterbury, Otago, Southland, and Marlborough districts. The clause set out that where a worker had voluntarily agreed to accept a less rate of wages than the rate fixed by the award he should not be entitled to recover any part of the difference between the two rates.

Mr J. M’Combs (Lyttelton) characterised the clause as the most outrageous piece of legislation that had ever been introduced in the New Zealand Parliament. He declared that the Government had allowed itself to be persuaded by a group of sheep owners to step in and prevent a number of workers from receiving the amount of remuneration to which they were legally entitled. It was interfering with the rights of working men in a ruthless and shameless manner. Mr M’Combs alleged that the clause amounted to barefaced robbery. The Leader of the Opposition said that according to his advice eight or nine stations were affected, and the amount of money involved did not exceed between £l5O and £2OO. The men, on commencing work, had been advised by the station owners that unless they were prepared to work for considerably less than the award rates they would not be engaged. The union had advised the men to commence work under protest, each man to tell his employer that he expected to be paid the full award rates. The Prime Minister said that only one side of the story had been given by Mr Holland. The sheep owners had approached the Government and pointed out that the awards affecting them did not expire until December 31, and they would have to wait a long time for the court to review the conditions. This length of time was, considered a definite hindrance, and it was pointed out that they could not afford to carry on under the old conditions with prices, as they were. It was asked that some arrangement should be made possible whereby a mutual agreement could be arrived at regarding wages in order to bring them more into line with the sheep owners’ ability to pay. Arrangements had been made, but the union secretaries had then stepped in and declared that the awards could be enforced, and cases were brought against the employers. Mr F. Langstone (Waimarino) challenged the Prime Minister’s statements, declaring that he was giving concessions to hig wealthy friends that would react detrimentally to the workers. “ The bunk and sheer nonsense talked by the Prime Minister will not bear investigation, he said. Mr T. D. Burnett (Temuka) said the parties were quite justified in coming to a mutual agreement even if they did break the law, and this was the only way to attack the problems of the primary industries. Agreements had been made to tide the workers and the employers over difficult times, and this was one point where the arbitration system had proved to be directly disadvantageous to the working man.

The Leader of the Opposition said that in the first instance there had been a unanimous agreement between the sheepowners and the workers as to the terms of employment, but when the former desired to break away from this agreement they had not gone back to the unions, but had endeavoured to use the economic stress to compel the men to accept poorer conditions. They had been prepared to break the law, and had gone to the Government for support. The Government was now bringing forward this retrospective legislation to validate illegal acts. After further discussion the closure was applied, and the clause was adopted. _ A new clause relating to the appointment of additional conciliation commissioners was adopted on a division. Mr M'Combs then moved that a new clause to provide in cases where the number of workers concerned in an industrial dispute included 60 per cent, or more women, referenceto the Arbitration Court should automatically; follow upon the failure of the Conciliation Council to come to an agreement.

Mr Parry appealed to the Government to accept the clause, contending that women workers were defenceless. He felt sure if the Government accepted_ it it would not he ashamed of its action 12 months hence. ... Mr Hamilton said the Government had given careful consideration tooths matter, and its failure to make provision in the direction advocated by Mr M'Combs had not been due to hard-heartedness on its P °Mr W. E. Barnard (Napier): The age of chivalry is over. Mr Hamilton: Oh, no. Continuing, t»e Minister said it was considered that the line of action recommenced by the Labour members would not be in the best intereste at the present time. _ There were many women to-day whose jobs were very difficult to retain, and one of the main things was to keep them in jobs. Mr Semple: Sweating them in. the process. Mr Hamilton: No, not sweating them. The Minister said the Government had to accept responsibility for what _it was doing, and had weighed the position carefully. The Leader of the Opposition: It means that the Government is going to torca women’s wages down. Mr Hamilton: Not at all. I believe the Bill will have the effect of keeping more people in jobs. . . Mr Holland said that if the Minister had made up his mind that no protection was to be given to women and girls it could only mean that it was considered imeesary either to speed up the work, reduce wages, or lengthen the hours, possibly all of these. It was recpgmsed that the Arbitration Act had had its mam benefit in its application to women workers in sweated industries. He predicted that it would be found that conditions and wages would become worse and worse in New Zealand. , ~ , At 6.45 the Prime Minister stated that members had had a good discussion, and he suggested that the House go to a division. If the Opposition members agreed to such a course he would undertake to look into their proposals before the Bill went to the Upper House. . Mr H. E. Holland: There is a disinclination on these benches to accept the Prime Minister’s offer. He went on to say that he thought the House should go on till mjdnight or so with the third reading and have to-morrow free. Mr Forbes: I am quite willing to accept that. Mr Semple said he personally was opposed to Mr Forbes’s suggestion, ihe Prime Minister had given no definite promise to amend the clause. Mr Forbes: No. Mi? Semple went on to say that it tlie Prime Minister would give such a definite promise, he would acccept the oiler. The debate was continued until 8.10 p.m., when the Minister of Lands (Mr E A Ransom) moved the closure, which was applied, and the amendment was defeated by 39 votes to 22. Immediately, Mr W. Nash (Hurt) moved a further amendment to abolisli the penalties for strikes and lockouts from the Act. There was mo other speaker to this amendment, which, was defeated after a division by 40 votes to 23. Yet a further amendment was moved by Mr J. O’Brien (Westland), which aimed at the prevention of the formation of bogus unions. He said bogus unions had been formed in the past by drunkards and gaolbirds, and his amendment was to prevent such a scandal occurring in the future. ; . Mr Semple, supporting the amendment, said it provided that thq trades union movement would be protected instead of destroyed. . , , , , , Mr O’Brien’s motion was also defeated, and Mr Parry then moved that insofar as seamen were concerned the whole of the Dominion be treated as one industrial district. He considered that New Zealand had been lagging behind in industrial organisation. Faming transport, building, etc., should be organised nationally. Mr Parry’s motion was also defeated. , . ~ An identical amendment moved by Mr C. L. Carr (Timaru) met the same fate. The next amendment was sponsored by Mr 11. G. R. Mason (Auckland Suburbs), who moved that preference to unionists be included in the definition “ industrial matter.” The Supreme Court, he said, had ruled that the Arbitration Conn; stepped outside its province when it defined “industrial matter” as including preference to unionists. —This was also defeated, and proved to be the last Opposition amendment. The passing of the schedule of the Bill was challenged by the Opposition, but was carried by 40 votes to 22, and the Bill was reported to the House at 10-25 p.m. The third reading was then proceeded with. Mr Holland said that he supposed the Prime Minister would declare lie Bill a money Bill so that it could not be amended when it went to the Upper House.

Mr Forbes; No. Mr Holland; Then I hope it will be amended in the other House. Mr Forbes contended that the present debate had been very one-sided. Labour members: That’s your fault. The Prime Minister said that if there had been speeches made by his side °f the House they would never have pot the Bill through at all. There had been a disastrous drop in our income, he said, which had caused us to make a very serious revision of our national income, and during the recent election the country had been made fully aware of the Government’s programme regarding compulsory conciliation and voluntary arbi-

tration. There was no use shutting our eyes to the fact that where there was compulsory arbitration there was unemployment, and he was sure that under the system proposed in the Bill there would be more factories working than there otherwise would be. The debate was carried on by Messrs K. Semple, T. Makitauara (Southern Maori), J. O’Brien (Westland)), E. J. Howard (Christchurch South), 11. Holland (Christchurch North), and F. Jones (Dunedin South). The Bill was read a third time at 1.55 a.m., and passed by 34 votes to 19. The House adjourned to 7.30 p.m. on Monday. COMPULSORY CONCILIATION OPPOSED BY UNITED EXECUTIVE. At a meeting of the local executive of the United Party, held on Thursday evening, the following resolution was carried unanimously:— That this executive is strongly of the opinion that the proposed amendment to the Arbitration Act. having reference to compulsory conciliation and voluntary arbitration, is not in the best interests of the country as it will result in the efficiency of the present Act being seriously curtailed. The executive views with alarm the possible result of legislative effect being given to the amendment as now proposed in the Bill. A copy of this resolution was telegraphed to the Prime Minister (Mr G. W. Forbes).