CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL.

Otago Witness, Issue 3111, 29 October 1913, Page 5

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL.

MEETING OF UNIONISTS

RESOLUTION OF PROTEST CARRIED. The Trades Hall was well filled on the 22nd by members of the various industrial unions of workers, who had been together to hear the provisions of dustrial Conciliat.on and Arbitration Consolidation Bill ” discussed by various speakers. were several ladies among those present, and Mr M. M’Allen (president of the General Labourers’ Union) occupied the chair. The Bill under d.scussron is now before Parliament, and the meeting, whieft was arranged by the General Labourers Union, was called with the, object of protesting against a number of the clauses to which the workers took strong exception. In briefly declaring the meeting open Mr M'Allen referred to the object for which it had been called, and stated that it the objections were not fully enunciated that evening those present would be given the opportunity of organising a better and larger meeting for Sunday evening. Mr R. Breen (secretary of the Otago Trades and Labour Council) was the first speaker. He dealt in a clear and forcible manner with the objections to the Bill Irom the point of view of the workers. In the first place he desired to move a resolution so as to put the meeting in order. .He would move “That this meeting of unionists enters its most emphatic protest against the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Bill introduced by the Hon. W. F. Massey (Minister of Labour) being passed into law and urges all members of Parliament to strenuously oppose the Bill now before them/’ Mr Breen then went on to rofei to the early history of industrial disputes in this country. Immediately after the great maritime strike of 20 years ago labour leaders and legislators alike were impressed with the necessity for settling industrial disputes in a more humane and peaceful way than had previously prevailed. With that object in view, and also for the purpose of encouraging the formation of industrial unions, the Industrial and Conciliation Act had been placed on the Statute Book. lor a period of 12 years—from 1894 to 1906 the Act achieved its object, and during that time no strikes took place. At the end of that period some unrest occurred in the slaughtering industry—caused, he believed, by mal-administration of the Act. _ r lhe Hon. Mr Millar had an opportunity to remedy matters, but instead of that he brouglit down a Bill designed to prevent strikes altogether. The Bill became law, but the strikes continued, and there had been little else in Now Zealand ever since. The Hon. Mr Massey had been forced to take a part and to amend the Act, and he scorned to believe that the best way to abolish strikes was to make the penalties heavier and more severe upon the workers. He (Mr Breen) desired to point out also that his objections applied both to the new clauses and to those in the present Act as well. The first clause he would deal with was No. 3. It read us follows:—“ No award or industrial agreement, whether made before or after the commencement of this Act, shall affect the employment of any worker who is employed otherwise than tor the direct or indirect pecuniary pain of the employer,” That clause did not appear in the Act prior to 1908, and at that time the award was binding on anyone employing any kind of labour whatever. Its effect was to exempt a man from the operation of the Act who employed a number of domestic workers, and that was neither just nor equitable. Clause 97 of the Act gave the judge of the Arbitration Court power to refuse to make an award if he considered that for any reason an award should not be made. The judge had exercised that power on several occasions. The one special case he wished to refer to was that dealing with private hotels. There were several hundreds of these in the dominion, and not one of them could be brought under an award owing to the decision of the judge unless it ran a restaurant business as well. Those were two injustices that had been imposed on the workers since 1908. and now the Prime Minister proposed to perpetuate them in his now Bill. He would next deal with clause 6. sub-clause 2. which read:—“ Where the registrar is satisfied that the number of workers engaged in any industry . is less than 60 the application for registration . . . may be made by a number of workers not less than 25 per cent, of the total, and in no case less than 5.” He did not object to the number being five, but the object of the insertion of that clause was not to give five workers an opportunity to form a union, because the Act provided that not less than

lo members could torm a new union, ite clause was put in for the purpose of allowing a section of a union to withdraw from the main union and form a separate union of its own.—(A Voice: “A ‘scab’ union.’’) Clause 22 made provision for the subdivision of a union into two cr more separate pares, and meant, Mr Breen said, that any union might have branches withdrawing from it and forming separate unions. . Clauses 90 and 91, on the other hand, provided for the preference clauses in an award applying to the members of any union. These clauses meant that membership of, say, the General Labourers’ Union was sufficient compliance with the preference clauses if a man desired to work at any other occupation than as a general labourer. If that were carried out generally and made general in its application it might be a very good thing, because it would mean the doing away with sectional unionism. One union would then cover the whole of New Zealand, and a man could work at any occupation ho chose. —(Applause.) But under existing conditions skilled artisans had had to fight very hard for their present position, and it had been found necessary to admit only competent workmen. If that clause were nut into operation it would be the death-blow to skilled trades in the dominion. In clause 24, sub-clause (3) gave the registrar power to order a secret ballot before cancelling the registration of a union, and sub-clause (4) prevented the registration being cancelled if proceedings had boon taken against the union for a now award. There was another p oviso in the Bill enabling any party to apply for a now award three months before the existing award expired. These throe clauses, said Mr Breen in conclusion, were obviously very objectionable from the workers’ point of view, and, in addition, there were a number of other pin-pricks in the Bill.—(Applause.)

Mr R. Slater seconded Mr Breen’s motion. He stated that it was very tone considering the matter it was dealing with. Referring to the Bill, he stated that, oven in the interpretation clause, it was desired to crush the workers by making their refusal to enter into a fresh agreement a misdemeanour at law. In clause 26 the court was given power, if it thought fit. to alter any agreement, but he did not, understand why such power should be extended to the court, or think that the court should interfere with any agreement. Clause 33 also conferred similar power on the court, and he objected very strongly to it, though ho did not say that the court would interfere. Sub-clauses (3) and (4) gave power to a dissatisfied member of a union to attend a dispute on his own behalf, and perhaps ask for something at variance to the demands of the representatives of the union. Clause 86 extended the maximum time for which the court could fix an award from three to five years, which was, of course, far too long; while clause 131 permitted the formation of bogus unions Part 6 of the Act was entirely new, and was, indeed, as novel as it was new, and one part of it made it possible for the employers to bo aware that a strike was contemplated weeks before such an event could take place. Mr J D. Smith, the last speaker, referred to the clauses dealing with strikes in caustic and vigorous terms. He traced the rise of the present relations of Capital and Labour in allegorical fashion, and stated that by the “ strike ” provisions of the Bill the workers of New Zealand would become neither more nor less than slaves. Justice, equity, and good conscience, ho averred pessimistically, were merely figments of the imagination, and had no real existence. The only remedy for the iniquitous law preposed was organisation and united action on the part of those affected by the Bill. Mr Breen's motion was then put to the meeting, and carried unanimously. It was decided to forward copies of the same to the Prime Minister, the Dunedin members of Parliament, and the Labour members. On the motion of Mr MacManus. it was decided to hold a mass meeting of protest in the Queen’s Theatre on Sunday evening. It was stated that an effort would be made to get Mr E. Tregoar to visit Dunedin and also add less the meeting.