THE ARBITRATION BILL.

Otago Witness, Issue 2848, 14 October 1908, Page 32

THE ARBITRATION BILL.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL AMENDMENTS. PARTIAL DISAGREEMENT. A VICTORY FOR THE WORKERS. WELLINGTON, October 6. In tJie House of Representatives this afternoon the Hon. Mr Millar moved that the amendments made in the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Bill by the Legislative Council be agreed to, with the exception of those made in clauses 29, 32, 33, 54, S7», «u*a 61. The Minister explained the nature of ] the amendments proposed by the Council and to which he was unable to agree. The House had provided that three assescors might be appointed, one of which might not belong to the industry, but the Council's amendment enabled a sole aseessor to be appointed who need not belong to the trade concerned in the dispute. They also empowered members of Parliament to sit as assessors, and he very strongly felt that was not "at all desirable. Another amendment empowered a commissioner to have a vote in everything, but that recommendation was not desirable. The Council had struck out the proposal under whioh the court had power to modify an award in such industries ac flaxmtlling and tanning, which were very liable to be effected by market fluctuations. By the striking out of clause 61 the Council would enable any person over 25 years of age to be employed as an apprentice. He had heard of savvmillers of 60 years of age being described as apprentices. He moved that all these amendments be disagreed "with and that a committee, consisting of Messrs Hardy, Tanner, and himself be appointed to draw' up reasons. October 8. There were • two conferences between managers from the Upper and Lower Houses regarding the amendments made by the former in the Arbitration Bill. The managers from the Houee at the ficst conference were the Hon. Mr > Millar and Messrs Tanner and Hardy, and 1 the Upper House representatives were the Honsr. Dr Findlay, C. M. Luke, and J. E. Jenkinson. This conference failed to agree. Subsequently the Lower House appointed Messrs Millar, Arnold, and W. Fraser, while the Upper House appointed the Hons.' Dr . Findlay, Jones, and Sinclair. This conference met at 9.30 p.m., and after a somewhat lengthy sitting arranged a compromise. The first point in dispute was in connection with clause 29, in which it was provided that one of the three acceesors might ba appointed from outside the membership of the union. The Upper Hou.se made this to read, that if there be only on>3 assessor on each side euch afteteom might be outside the industry. In this cass the conference agreed to the clause as passed by the Lower House. In claure 32 the amendment by the Upper Hourse provided thafc the commissioners 6::ould have both a deliberate ai.d a casting vote, whereas the Lower House did not wish to give him a vote at all. The conference decided that where there is equal voting the commiscioner thall have a deliberative vote, but only on matters of proceedure. In clause 54, the Lower Houi>a had provided that the court should have " power to amend the provisions of any -award where such amendment is deemed necessary or atlvissible by Teason of any alteration of the circumstances in which the award was made, or in the matters to winch it relates." This was intended to provide for any industry in which there may be a sudden rise or fall in prices, such as the flax milling industry, in which, owing to the fall in prices recently, many mills had to cease operations. The Upper House fetruck out thiu provision, and the conference agreed to xeinstato it, but to make it apply to the flax milling industry only. The real tug of war took place in connection Avith clause 57b. This new clau&s had bc<>n inserted by the Upper House, and provided that when any member of a union was dismissed and victimisation was suspected the onus of proof that the man Mas not so dismicFed should rest with the employer. This va^ piobably the mes-t interesting point that has aii'-en in connection with the bill, j inasmuch as the provkion was rejected j by the Lower House. When the fir.' t conference was held, the majority of the representative.?, from 100 Lower House v<»re fa\ourable to it (with the exception of the amount of the fine), but th« Uppjr House repre<.ntative« endeavoured to have it struck out, and the conference failed to agree. The fecond conference agreed to «i "com promise by providing that in the c; &c of a president, vice-precident, focretary, or tieaturer, or any accessor who has *at on a board of conciliation in connection with a dispute or any member who ha^ lepie-onttd a union in any necrotutiors that ha'-e taken place imlUttdirttely pieceding his disinisjtal the

onus of proof shall rest with ike employe. The fine of £200 was reduced to £25. The Labour members were very pleased with this compromise, which they scarcely, expected, and what they deem to be highly satisfactory. The new clause wiJl protect all the officers and representatives of unions, who usually are the men supposed to be victimised. In regard to the general body of workers preference to unionists is regarded as sufficient to meet their case. The conference also agreed to the Council's amendment of -clause 61, the effect being to leave any limitation of the age of apprentices to the discretion of the Arbitration Court. The amendment making members of th© Legislature free to act as assessors without suffering disqualification was struck j out.