THE Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, MAY 25, 901. ARBITRATION COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 3744, 25 May 1901, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, MAY 25, 901. ARBITRATION COURT.

"'he groat question of law raised in connection with Arbitration and Conciliation in Christchurch is whether persons ongaged in other than productive industries can obtain from the court an award ? The question was raised in this way. 'She hair-dressers’ assist ant-,like other workers

applied to Court to fix their hours of labour and rate of wages, but, their employers hired a lawyer to argue that they did not come within the stupe of the Ac:. That lawyer knew as well as anyone could tell Into that they did, and that there was no getting out of it, but of course lit: •=i good other wise. 1 aero are largo unoth’ rs of employers in the same position as the hair drearer.-, and they would l:ke to bo reSieveo of having to appear before the our They have, of •. nurse, money to .pond, and the lawyer knew it, ar.d, of course, advised them that the court had no jurisdiction, it meant a good solid fee, and, of course, it would bo more useful to him to have Mat feen own hi.) pocket than it; that of the emp'oy.-rs. Bo ho appeared before the Arbitration Court, and argued his case, and Judge Cooper :old him lie wa-. altogether wrong. But like (■•cldsiuith’a sehcolma-tor, "Even though vanquished ho could argil ) still,” and the learned Judge at length tel i him i.» .state the case for the .Supremo Court, and have it finally set tied. This was ex-ictly whit the learned gentleman '.•.anted. A fait Cl foe awaited his appearance in the (Supremo Onur!, ami so ho accepted the position most willingly, .v.w that lawyer knew aa well as Judge Cooper, and every ono knows as well as either of loom, tint tthereis not, and tho.e cannot bo any doubt about this mat lot. When the Bill was bolero I'arliament we

pointed out, that seven nurse gills, •i" i;; eii set van t girls, or .seven fare) ia’, iifiirs cnild form a onion, and having done so, that they could drag up before die Court of iUl)it.n»;ioii, not only their own vinp'oyers, bu. ail the employers in u;o same lino in the who'e provincial district, .Seven farm labourers could now lorm a union and drag before the court every fanner in t'ante, bury win. employ.-! labour. There is no getting over it. i’ha: is iliu law, ami it. was made so with the lull concurrence and approval of the Christchurch Employers’ Asa cinSion. A e;-pv of last years Act was forwarded to .he Association before it was passed, and they returned it highly approving of it. "heir report in its favour can b« found m the Blue Boohs. Biu the Employers’ Association did not do this without having a reason for if. Tiny were no friends of din Act which previously existed, and under which they had frequently appeared before the Court. Under that Act hairdressers, faun labourers, and so on, could not go before the court. It was only last session that the Act was widened in its scope at the request of the Unionists and with i ho full consent of the Employers’ Association. This Employers’ -vasocintiou was limited practically to fact >iy owners, i ce! iho old Act alUot'.'d them only, dheso factory employers or owners thought it hard that they should have to no bin it to bo dragged before the court while other employers were not, and so they welcomed the widening of the Act .■ iBS to embrace all. :ho factory owners a gucl as follows —“ Wo afo being dragged before the court now, and nobody bothers about it, and consequon ;ly nobody understands the Act. IE we get the Act so altered that it will bo brought homo to every employer of labor, then they will ail understand it. The people are at present misled by its name. Arbitration and Jouciliutiou sound vary nice. .Everybody think they are very good, and take no further trouble to undiusstaud what ihoy mean, but if all employers get practical knowledge of the working of the they will combine to have it repealed.” That is how the Employers’ Association argued. They wanted every one brought under the operation of the Act so as to increase the number of its Gnomics, and eventually secure its repeal. Thejtradea unionists on the other hand desired to

- xleud its scope so as to bring under its operations those who were outside, and an between the two tho Act became law. flow any lawyer can stand up before a Judge and argue that this Act has any limit is incomprehensible. The whole matter is contained iu tho interpretation of the terms used iu the Act. A worker is defined ;-.b “ any person of any age or either sox employed by any employer to do any skilled or unskilled, manual, or clerical work for hire or reward in any industry.” It will bo seen from this that even clerks, as well as all others employed iu skil.ed or unskilled work are intended, k hen tho point arises, what is an in diisuy S Ais delinud by tho Act as “ any business, trade,manufacture, undertaking, calling, or employment in which workers are employed.” Again an <.-m----pioyor is detined as “ persons, fir air, companies, or corporations employing ouo or mure workers.” .Now, herein lies the whole thing. A worker is anyone of any ago, male or female, who works for hire or reward ; an employer is anyone who omoloya one or more workers, and an industry is “ auy business, trade, manufacture, undertaking, calling. or employ mont.” Mow what work is not comprehended herein ? Wlmt is not either a business,trade, manufacture, undertaking, calling, or employment? Not one that wa know of. it could, we think, be more reasonably argued that members of Par liamont, Judges of the Supreme Court, Ministers of r uligion,and so on,could come under the operations of the Aci thin that hair-dressers, carters, and other similar occupations could not. But a Christchurch lawyer was able to argue differently, and yet Judge Cooper consented to let tho case be stated for the Supreme Court, and so the matter stands.