NEW LABOUR LAWS

Taranaki Daily News, 25 July 1930, Page 7

NEW LABOUR LAWS

EMPLOYERS CONCERNED. “TRADES HALL TYRANNY.” “When Mr. Brennan touches on the preference to unionists question, he gives the Government away completely,” said the president of the Employers’ Federation (Mr. T. R. Ashworth), replying to the Federal Attorney-General, on the amendments to the Arbitration Act (reports the Sun News-Pictorial). They were entitled to suspect the Government’s intentions when they considered what might almost be . termed traps for employers in this legislation. However regretful and unpleasant it was to have to attribute sinister and biased motives to the Government, it was impossible to do > else when the actual evidence of the Bill was considered. Referring to the removal of certain penalties, and the retention-of others, Mr. Ashworth pointed out the result of the passing of' these amendments would be that°only the employer could be penalised. - ’ . Mr. Brennan was entirely wrong when he stated the vital issue of preference remained where it was —at the discretion of the court, continued Mr. Ashworth. The court now had power to order preference—other things being equal—but the words, other things being equal, were to be left out. Preference, therefore, did not remain where it was, as this would be absolute preference. Tho public would realise what that 'meant, and what a Trades Hall tyranny f it was designed to achieve. Under the Act, preference could be granted only by the court, but the amendments' would permit it to be granted by the Conciliation Commissioners. If such an amendment was passed, the fate of the non-unionists. in the timber industry and of the waterfront •would be at once determined. When it was considered what was attempted in regard to returned soldiers, and what had been done in, the Public i Service, he was prompted, .to wonder -I whether the amendment s was not !design- | ed as a means not merely of achieving

a policy, but of providing a means for a last attempt to meet the demands of the Waterside Workers’ Federation. Mr. Ashworth said it was not. suggest-, ed by him that any direct provision was proposed that rules of unions should- be paramount over orders of the court, but that result was achieved indirectly by the repeal of certain sections. ■ , It was amazing to suggest that the repeal of a section winch peimitted agreements in accordance with an award, would assist or facilitate conciliation and promote goodwill in industry. There would be nothing to prevent unions punishing members who, disregarding their officials, obeyed orders of the court. If tho abolition of the secret ballot was not designed to free officials from the control of members of the union, why not leave it in? asked Mr. Ash-, worth. “It has been blatantly suggested that I have been directed by organised Labour in drawing up this Bill,” was the statement. made by the Attorney-Gen-eral (Mr. Brennan), referring to. the. Arbitration Bill in the House of Representatives. “It was said that it was directed. by a Labour conference which sat at- Canberra recently, but the Bill was printed before the conference met. Then it was suggested that it was directed by the A.C.T.U. from Melbourne. “The Government has not disdained, any helpful suggestions, and least of all has it disdained the advice of organised Labour. It has also, received the advice of representatives of the employers.” Mr. Holloway (Labour, Victoria,? clashed with the Opposition Leader (Mr. Latham) on the question of the deletion of the penal clauses which-the Bill proposes. Mr. Latliam hotly denied Mr. Holloway’s statement that both employers': and employees’ representatives had asked the Bruce-Page Government not to include the penal clauses in its amending Bill. , Mr. Holloway said that he had tried to persuade the last Government not to go on with the penal clauses. McKay, representing the Chamber of Manufactures, had also opposed the provisions. The main object of the Bill was to extend conciliation as opposed to arbitration.