THE ARBITRATION COURT.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LX, Issue 143763, 11 April 1912, Page 2

THE ARBITRATION COURT.

Labour, criticism of the JUDGE. A CLOSE DIVISION. (By telegraph.—Own Correspondent.) WELLINGTON, April 10. The Trades Council Conference now sitting here devoted some attention to-day to criticism of the judge of the Arbitration Court. The latter how,ever was not without his defenders. The matter came up upon a drastic motion, moved by Mr. Sullivan (Canterbury;, condemning Mr. Justice Sim’s treatment of union representatives who conducted cases in the Court, The motion also ■ attributed a large number of the cancellations of union registrations to the method in which the judge administered the Act. Mr. Sullivan said the language of the remit might be strong, but he asserted that the discourteous treatment meeted out by Mr. Justice Sim was responsible for many of the cancellations of registration that had taken place. Mr. W. T. Noot (Wellington), says the Post’s report, moved an amendment “that a committee be set up to draft a new Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, this to apply to all remits dealing with the Act.” He declared that he had been treated courteously by the Court, and it was undeniable that certain union officials had tried to browbeat the Court. Whilst the Wellington Council was of opinion that somebody other than a judge should be the President of the Court, it could pot support the motion. The president ruled that the amendment was not in order. Mr. Muir (Wellington) also stated that he had been courteously treated by the judge of the Court, and in one case be had received considerable help from him. Still the judge sometimes asked union officials to make their case as short as possible, owing to pressure of duty. He seemed to, make the Arbitration ' Court subsidiary to the Supreme Court. The work of the Arbitration Court should be pre-eminent in point of importance. Mr. Burgoyne (Canterbury) said that in a recent case at Christchurch the judge had jumped on him, almost before he opened his case. Mr. W. W. Naughton (Wellington) thought the discussion was not likely to do any good. The same complaints had been made against Mr. Justice Chapman and Mr. Justice Cooper. It appeared that some people always expected to get concessions when they went before the Court. He thought that most people who went before the Court received the greatest courtesy. Mr. Burgoyne: I have not. Mr. Naughton demanded that it the conference thought the judge of the. Arbitration Court whs the wrong man it should say so. He doubted whether they would do any better with a commercial man at the head of the Court. If the motion was passed what good would it do? If they were going to suggest that a Supreme Court .judge should not be at the head of the Court, and he hoped they were not they should say so. There was nothing to be gained 1 by slanging judges. Mr. E. Breen (Otago) said he would oppose the motion, because in the first place it was not a truthful motion. The motion was rejected on the casting vote of the chairman.