A DRASTIC CLAUSE

Wairarapa Age, 31 July 1936, Page 5

A DRASTIC CLAUSE

SERIOUS BURDEN PLACED ON EMPLOYERS. PENALTY FOR DISMISSAL OF WORKERS. STRONG OPPOSITION PROTESTS IN HOUSE. (By Telegraph—“ The Age” Special.) WELLINGTON, July 30. Passing easily over clauses in the Finance Bill restoring Public Service salaries, the House of Representatives made good progress in Committee until it reached Clause 20, which seeks to make it an offence punishable by a fine of £25 ro dismiss a worker in order to deprive him of the benefits of increased wages or reduced hours, stipulating that in any proceedings the burden of proving that such a

worker was not dismissed in contravention of this section shell lie on the employer. At this point the Committee proceedings livened up, Opposition speakers elaborating the point put by the Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes (Leader of the Opposition) that hardship must result if the clause were applied to the many cases where, out of consideration for the unemployed, jobs had been found for men who could not return in the value of their work the higher wages now required by law. Mr. W. J. Broadfoot declared that he was beginning to wonder if a place should not be found in the Dominion National Museum for a specimen of the employer, because he would soon be extinguished. The Hon. P. Fraser: “How about putting the National Party theref” Mr. Broadfoot: “It is a clause of extermination to cruidfy employers who have had the enterprise to start businesses. It makes them criminals and is legislation transferred from the criminal code to our Industrial law.” The Minister of Finance (the Hon. W. Nash) declared that he was wondering if Opposition speakers were really in earnest. He would refer them to a clause in the Arbitration Act of 1925, for which they were responsible, which stipulated that the onus shall lie on the employer to prove that a worker was not dismissed in contravention of the clause, and the fine was the same as in the present Act, £25. Mr. S. G. Smith: “You are side-stop-ping. That has been the law for years. ' * The Minister: “Then why object to it now!”

Mr. Smith: “One was to prevent victimisation and intimidation —a different principle. ,f The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coatee came into the verbal battle with a declaration that the Minister had deliberately tried to mislead the House by quoting a clause relating to victimisation and

soggesting that the present legislation was on the same line. As for the practical effect of it, he knew of two young journalists who were being fired out In Wellington and twelve employees in motor garages who could not be retained because their work would not produce the income to pay them. After two hours 9 discussion on these lines, the clause went to a division, on an Opposition challenge, being retained by 40 votes to 17. The next clause passed without debate, to the accompaniment of an Opposition taunt, “More Governor-in-Council,’’ as it provided for the making of regulations.