CONCILIATION COUNCIL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16452, 14 June 1921, Page 5

CONCILIATION COUNCIL.

“ DICTATORIAL AND NOT CONCILIATORY.” EMPLOYER’S ALLEGATION. During the Conciliation Council proceedings in connection with the jewellers’ dispute yesterday, an employer, Mr W. F. Bridgman, expressed the opinion that the Concilation Council was dictatorial and not conciliatory. He alleged that unseen, dictatorial in-

fineness wore at work behind certain of the men who came to the table. The Conciliation Commissioner (Mr W. H. Hagger), said he could not agree that the council was dictatorial and not conciliatory. Neither could he agree that hidden forces were at work. He pointed out that last year more than 75 per cent of tlio disputes referred to the council had been settled without recourse to the Arbitration Court. This proved that the council was doing good work. With regard to the allegation that dictatorial forces were at work, Mr Hagger said he presumed Mr Bridgman referred to what was known as the “ professional agitator.” However, he considered that the employers were better organised than the workers. Employers in Christchurch were notified of details of disputes iri other parts of the Dominion, and they had at their finger- - nds everything they wanted regarding industrialism in New Zealand. It was only fair that the other side should have a similar advantage. There was also a better chance of a settlement Deing reached when a union secretary was present, because a secretary knew what lie wanted, and a good secretary always knew he had got the last out of the employers. Employers thought that they would get on better without the trade union secretary, bit experience had proved it to be otherwise-