FOR AND AGAINST

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 19993, 9 November 1927, Page 9

FOR AND AGAINST

THE ARBITRATION BILL Dairyman Says Awards Are Detrimental to Efficiency UNIONS FIGHT FOB RETENTION. (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Nov. 8. Before the Labour Bills Committee to-day, Mr T. O. Bishop, representing the Employers’ Federation, made a statement regarding telegrams which Jiad been exchanged between the Hon. G. J. Anderson and Mr C. W. Wood, president of the South Canterbury Employers’ Association, in which the latter indicated tnat the Employers’ Federation was divided in its attitude to the Bill. , Mr Bishop said that he wished to *make it clear that he had not said in his evidence that he represented every employer in New Zealand, or that the resolutions put before the Committee were unanimous. In his evidence he had expressed the considered opinion of the Employers’ Federation, and Mr Wood’s dissent did not alter the views of the Federation. Mr Wood’s telegram was not sent in the spirit it should have been sent.

To Mr J. Linklater, witness said that some of the dairy employers were members of the Employers’ Federation, but he had never attempted to say that ho was expressing the views of the dairy factory employers. Mr J. G. Elliott, on behalf of the farming community, gave evidence urging the abolition of the preference to unionists clause, and said that when the Bill was in the House he would move a clause abolishing it as far as it affected farming interests. It had been said that he was moving the clause at the instigation of the Minister, but he had asked the Minister if he would adopt the clause and the Minister said that he would leave it to the Commit? tee. The Preference Clause. In a dispute, if employers objected to the preference clause, the Court should not have the power to include it. It appeared to him that the Employers’ Federation was composed chiefly of manufacturers and merchants, and was ranged with Labour for the purpose of defeating the aspirations and objects of the farmers. Mr A. Cook, general secretary of the New Zealand Workers’ Union, on behalf of 11 unions of shearers, threshing machine employees, musterers, packers, and drovers, proposed to be exempted by the Bill, said there were about 4000 natives engaged in shearing, and if they were deprived of arbitration it would inflict great hardship and lead to sweating. If they were deprived of their awards a big reduction in wages would ensue. He was opposed to the proposed amendment in toto. Mr James G. Brechin, accountant and dairy farmer of Pahiatua, opposed the extension of the operations of the Arbitration Court to the dairy farming industry, which included 48,000 farmers, not counting 8000 under the Goodfellow companies. He cited a resolution to this effect from Rotorua, passed by the National Dairy Association and reviewed the conditions leading up to this decision. Cordial Relations Gone. He said awards were absolutely detrimental to efficiency, and the former cordial relations between employer and employee had disappeared. Anything which destroyed co-operation must be condemned, even if its introduction had been beneficial to certain parties. The failure of unionism was shown by the fact that after years of experience the directors of dairy companies and the farmers themselves were making efforts to remove the evil of unionism from industry. In reply to an assertion by Mr E. J. Howard that he was a paid agitator, witness replied: “No, I am proud to say that I am not an agitator nor a member of Parliament.”

Mr Howard: You are opposed to trade unionism —ln every shape or form. You are the paid secretary of six factories. What is the difference between you and the secretary of a union? —I believe I get paid, but the secretary of a union is a militant agitator and I am not

' Would you be insulted if I called you an agitator?—l do not think I would take it is an insult from you. To Mr Howard witness said that efficiency had not increased under awards. He represented six factories, none of which had experienced unionism for more than a few months, yet the cost of production had decreased, so that unionism had had little to do with it. The real reason of reduced costs of production was in reduced costs of material. Men Less Efficient Mr S. A. Broadjbent, chairman of the Levin Dairy Company asked for exemption of the dairy industry from the Act. Mr E. Hale, a Woodville dairy farmer and chairman of the Hopeland Dairy Coy, said the relations with the men were good until the past season, v%cn they were told that if they wanted to hold their jobs they would have to join the union. The old spirit was now a thing of the past and efficiency had' been broken down owing to the award. He was absolutely against preference to unionists.

Mr G. D. Kearney, manager of the North Tiramea Dairy Factory said that since the award the staff had told him on one occasion that they would take instructions from the union secretary and not from himself. Before that he had no trouble with the men, but now they had lost interest in everything except the hours worked, and they were discourteous to suppliers. Mr A. W. Gray, first assistant at the Hopelands factory endorsed this evidence and agreed that the men, under the award were not as efficient as formerly. Mr W. Richmond of Hastings, a meat exporter and sheep farmer, said the freezing branch should be included in the exemption. He agreed with Mr Elliott’s preference clause. Farmers’ building costs had increased through union awards. By making his own arrangements with an efficient carpenter he had built a shed for’ £92, paying award rates, when it would have cost by contract £l5O.