MORE STRONG CRITICISM.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 9322, 24 August 1908, Page 1

MORE STRONG CRITICISM.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE TRADES COUNCIL. The feeling among trades unionists in Clmstchurch is very .strong in regard to the derision of tho Arbitration Court. Tho decision was keenly discussed on Saturday and yesterday, and much sympathy was expressed with • the Farm Labourers' Union, while j many unionists condemn tho action of the Court. Mr A. D. Hart, president of the Canterbury Trades and Labour Council, interviewed by a reporter, said that ever since Mr Justice Sim's decision in the Bla4kball miners' case, that an employer had a legal right to dismiss men if' he thought they were going to give trouble, tho Avorkers had been doubtful of his impartiality. That feeling had developed and grown apace, especially Avhen tho Judge's treatment of the Canterbury Carpenters' Union had come to be knuwn. To all intents and purposes he dismissed that case before a word of evidence had been spoken. Without a word of evidence on the point he increaeed the hours of tho men, and put in a, piecework clause, which prevented members of the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joineis from getting Avork at .all. " And now on top of all this," said Mr Hart, " he hands down a decision which not only shows his bias, but which contains a strong criticism of his own judicial capacity. Fancy fear of wounding the susceptibilities of on.fi of the parties to the ■ca^e being given us a reason for no award ! We have- always been under the impression that Judges represented the majesty and dignity of the law, but when this argument is used to deprive men of their just legal

rights, sureiy we are justified in stating oar convictions that this Judge has very little regard for the law at ail. It is not the law he is careful of. but the interests of the section of society he belongs to. This has inevitably been forced upon us by the treatment liieted out to our representatives before the Court and to the men who have to work for their living As oneinstance of this, I might mention the case of the grain and wool workers. Eight or nine years ago the Court awarded a shilling an hour to the grain carriers in flour mills. Five or six weeks back the grain carriers asked for Is 3d an hour. This was justified by the increased cost of living, and by the fact that in the meantime tie Court had awarded Is M for the same work in Lyttelton. The Union was prepared to accept the Is 1-Jd recommended by the Board of Conciliation and was paid by one flourmill, but thr> Court comes along and awards Is ah hour and by an arrangement of the conditions reduces the earning capacity of the men. This is manifestly unfair. " Now with regard to the farm labourers' case this incorrigible antagonism to the interests of the workers is displayed with marked emphasis. The Court says that no regulation of working hours is desirable, because the men live with tho farmer. That is just as if it were reasonable to allow employers to work shot) assistants all hours because they happen to be working under the iniquitous living-iu system. This very feudal relation is just the reason why a limit should' be placed on the hours of work, becauso the intimacy of the employer with the man gives him greater control and : more power. <The Court's refusal to award 7s a day to the farm labourers, j who are in scores and scores of cases ' bemg paid 6s and down to 5s a day when the Judge admits that anything below is is not a living wa^e, is astounding. It is snr ely calculated to bring down the execrations of all rightthinking people upon his head. ' Tho statement that the question of a living wage does not enter in. it when tho employer supplies a roof and » bed and tucker is really remarkable V man then is supposed to be a tliin°with purely animal appetites, with no desu-e to read good books and to enter into social obligations and duties. The Court s justification of the refusal to grant a minimum wage to ploughmen is a deliberate suppression of the facts. It was clearly shown that out of seven-ty-six cases where ploughmen were mentioned, f thirty-eight were paid I A>s a wecu and over, and th«t of the other thirty-eight who wore receiving less than that amount mute a large proportion were boys and c™•£ ar " e ™ • . A « *h» ™ to show that 2/s (3d (tho Union's demand) was not unfair. But it is made to appear that the lower-paid workers are all men doing less work than the others •I ho whole judgment could be. gone over like this, and pulled to piece. It simply amounts to this, aud this is the danger that every trade unionist sees, that one Judge uses autocratic power m a despotic fashjon to set aside the wishes of Parliament. If he uses it in one case, ho might use it in all other cases. Indeed, he has the power to repeal the Act, Now we say that if the Act is a good Act it is good tor the farm labourer.?. IF- « ■~uugfe. takes tip -the position that it is not good for farm labourers, he might take up the position that' it is not good for mechanics, carpenters, painters, etc. Therein lies the clanger I am perfectly convinced that this^Judge will hare to go. If h e does not, he will destroy the confidence in the Act that exists, and will thereby cause great industrial unrest and turmoil."