LABOUR BILLS COMMITTEE. REPORT ON THE INDUSTRIAL CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL, TOGETHER WITH EVIDENCE TAKEN THEREON, AND APPENDIX.

Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1900 Session I, I-10

I.—lo

1900. NEW ZEALAND.

LABOUR BILLS COMMITTEE. REPORT ON THE INDUSTRIAL CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL, TOGETHER WITH EVIDENCE TAKEN THEREON, AND APPENDIX.

Report brought up on 23rd August, 1900, and ordered to be printed.

ORDERS OP REFERENCE.

Extracts from the Journals of the House of Representatives. Tuesday, the 3bd Day of July, 1900. Ordered, " That a Select Committee consisting of ten members be appointed, to whom shall be referred the Public Contracts Bill, and certain other Bills more particularly referring to labour, five to be a quorum. The Committee to consist of Mr. Arnold, Mr. Bollard, Mr. Collins, Mr. Laurenson, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Millar, Mr. Morrison, Captain Russell, Mr. Tanner, and the mover." —(Right Hon. R. J. Seddon.)

Peiday, thb 29th Day of Junk, 1900. Ordered, " Thut the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Bill be referred to the Labour Bills Committee." Right Hon. R. J. Seddon.)

. ' Friday, the 13th Day of July, 1900. Ordered, "That the names of Mr. J. Hutcheson and Mr. Palmer be added to the Labour Bills Committee."— (Right Hon. R. J. Seddon.)

Wednesday, the 18th Day of July, 1900. Ordered, " That the names of Mr. Ell and Mr. Hardy be added to the Labour Bills Committee."—(Right Hon. R. J. Seddon.)

REPORT. The Labour Bills Committee, to whom was referred the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, having taken evidence regarding the probable operation of the new clauses, and duly considered the same, together with all the proposed amendments of the law embodied in the said Bill, have now the honour to report that they recommend the Bill be allowed to proceed, subject to the amendments shown in a copy attached. 23rd August, 1900. J, A. Millar, Chairman,

I—l, 10,

I.—lo.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.

Thursday, 12th July, 1900. Mr. P. Hercus in attendance and examined. (No. 1.) 1. The Chairman.] Mr. Hercus, I understand you desire to give evidence in connection with this Bill ? —Yes, sir. 2. You represent the Canterbury manufacturers, do you not?- T Yes, the Canterbury branch of the New Zealand Cloth Manufacturers' Association. 3. I may say, Mr. Hercus, that we intend to take all the evidence in regard to the new matter aontained in this Bill. There are certain exceptional powers granted. The power of the Arbitration Court is extended and the Board's power is increased. These are the principal things. 'The whole of the amendments which require evidence are contained in the interpretation clauses ?— The evidence that I wish to give is principally in connection with the colonial nature of the awards. In regard to subsection (3), clause 86, I should like to know clearly if this decides the question of giving the Court power to make the awards universal throughout the colony: that is, in regard to industries which manufacture goods that are interchangeable throughout the colony. In one sense it would almost read as if it did, but reading between the lines it seems that it does not. 4. Captain Bussell.] What do you mean by " interchangeable " ?—Goods that are freely sold wholesale in different parts of the colony. For instance, I should not consider the business of a carpenter or a painter interchangeable. But where boots are manufactured and sold wholesale throughout the colony, where clothing is manufactured and sold in the same way, these are goods I should consider to be interchangeable. 5. Mr. Laurenson.] You wish that the award of the Court should apply to every industry of that nature throughout the colony ?—Yes. Otherwise we are brought face to face with the competition of other centres whose conditions of labour are very different to ours. What we desire is that the different centres of the colony should be placed on an equal footing; that is all we ask. 6. The Chairman.] Is that the only clause you desire to give evidence on, Mr. Hercus ?— That is the principal one, Mr. Chairman. Of course I do not know whether this Committee, in regarding this subsection (3), think it meets the case to which I refer. 7. Your desire is that, if the clause does not do so, it should be so amended that it will meet the case ? —Yes. 8. Mr. Lewis.] Wherein does it appear to fall short?—l may say that my interpretation of that clause has been considerably affected by the reply which the Premier gave to a deputation of master painters which waited upon him in Wellington regarding this Act. The Premier is reported to have said that he did not think it possible to have this amendment made, and he recognised that the law was defective as it did not make provision for the formation of unions in small places, so as to bring those in outlying districts under the operation of the awards. I take it that this subsection (3) is intended to apply to matters of a provincial nature, and not affecting small districts. We would like this subsection (3) amended so that it will provide that industrial awards affecting industries where the goods are interchangeable should obtain throughout the colony. Should I be in order in referring to the case which has been held before the Arbitration Court in Dunedin ? 9. The Chairman.] Yes, in anything bearing on this clause, or any other clause of the new matter—l suppose the Committee are aware that the clothing manufacturers of Dunedin, Christchurch, and Wellington have banded together into a Federated Association of Employers, and that the unions of those three centres have federated also. We have been before the Conciliation Board in Dunedin and before the Arbitration Court over the question of Auckland competition in the clothing trade. An industrial award has been filed in Auckland in the clothing trade, in which the statement of wages is considerably below the statement of wages in the other centres of the colony. The unions in the South are endeavouring to bind us under an industrial award to pay a certain rate of wages which is considerably higher than what obtains in Auckland. We are feeling the competition that is obtaining. We wish that uniformity in this matter should be secured. We do not ask for any favours of any sort. We simply say that, where the goods are interchanged freely from place to place, we should be on equal footing as regards the conditions of labour. Otherwise employers who have invested large sums of money in mills, clothing-factories, warehouses, and other businesses are threatened by competition which will seriously depreciate those interests. Of course, were we at liberty throughout this colony to do as we liked as regards wages and conditions of labour, then we would meet this competition in our own way. As it is, however, we are faced with this competition, and, as I said, an endeavour is being made to tie us up in an

2

3

I.—lo

industrial award which will have the effect of seriously depreciating our property and prejudicially affecting the interests of a large number of workpeople. We have in those three centres something like fifteen hundred hands employed in the clothing manufacturing industry. In Auckland I fancy there are altogether about five hundred, of whom only a small percentage belong to the union. The last return makes it 66 only. At the present time we find that these fifteen hundred employes are seriously affected by the action of what is, at any rate, only a small minority of the workers in another part of the colony. It has been found in the boot trade that this state of things obtained for many years, and most strenuous efforts have been made by which finally a uniformity " log" has been secured. I may say that when this matter was before the Conciliation Board in Dunedin, about twelve months ago, it was then adjourned for three months to endeavour to secure amended legislation. The Dunedin Arbitration Court found there was the same difficulty in the way. May I refer to the finding of that Court ? 10. I think it is well known what it is. I do not think there is any need to refer to that matter here?— When we came before the Arbitration Court, the Court practically took up the same position as the Conciliation Board. The Court said it could not deal with this in a manner that would not inflict injustice upon one side or another, and we practically left the matter as the Conciliation Board did in Dunedin a year ago. 11. Mr. Arnold.] I take it you want an award that will be applicable to all parts of the olony?—We only ask that the Court may be given power—which it evidently lacks at present— to make awards that will be universal throughout the colony. We deplore the want of power at present to make awards applicable throughout the colony. So far as my evidence is concerned I wish it confined to the statement —the broad principle—that in a colony like this, with only a mere handful of people, where the facilities for interchange are so great, where industries are concerned in which these goods are interchangeable the Court should have power to make the conditions of labour and the payment of labour uniform throughout the colony. 12. Mr. Bollard.] I should like to ask the witness, Mr. Chairman, whether he considers the conditions in Auckland —the existing conditions—the same as in other parts of the colony ? —So far as I can gather, and I have gone very fully into the matter, I think the conditions are very similar indeed. We led technical evidence in the Arbitration Court in which it was not elicited jhat the conditions varied very greatly. In one or two minor details the methods were different. £ do not think that it has a very great bearing upon the broad principle which we wish to affirm. 13. Are you prepared to say that the employes do not earn as much money in Auckland as in any other part of the colony ?—According to the Government returns they seem to earn about the same. I think if there is a difference they earn less money in Auckland than in the South. Of course, one considerable matter in which we are handicapped is the disparity in the hours of labour, and that must be considered in comparing wages earned by the operatives in this trade, at all events in Auckland and the rest of the colony. In Auckland they work forty-eight hours in the factories, and in the South they only work forty-five hours. 14. The Chairman.'] Have you anything further to say—any other evidence you wish to give ? —No, sir, I think that is all. Mr. F. M. King in attendance and examined. (No. 2.) 1. The Chairman.] What is your name, please ?—F. M. King. 2. You are manager of the clothing factory in Auckland?— Yes, manager of Mr. G. H. Powley's Cambridge Clothing Factory in Auckland. 3. You desire to give evidence in connection with this Bill ?—Yes, sir. 4. The evidence we are prepared to receive will be upon any new matter brought forward in this Bill- —the interpretation of worker, &c, section 85, where the powers of the Arbitration Court are increased, and section 86, where power is proposed to be given to the Court to make interprovincial awards. If upon any of these points you desire to give evidence, please do so?—ln regard to clause 86, the fight about placing this clause in the Act has been caused to a great extent by the condition of things in the clothing trade in New Zealand. Christchurch, Dunedin, and Wellington all work under similar methods, but in Auckland we have altogether different methods. Messrs. A. Clarke and Sons' factory was started by Mr. Holle, who came from Melbourne, while I have been brought up to the trade in England, and have travelled throughout the whole of America, and have introduced into Auckland an altogether different system of manufacture. Ido not believe that if a new system is introduced it should have the effect of reducing the wages of the individual worker. I think, and I shall be able to prove to you, gentlemen, that we pay at least as high wages per week as are paid to the workers in other parts of the colony, but that with our different system of manufacture we are able to produce our work at a little less cost. Now, I have here copies of the Otago Daily Times of last year, in which Mr. Hallenstein stated before the Conciliation Board that Dunedin, Christchurch, and Wellington were twenty-six years behind Auckland in the clothing trade. If this Act is , brought into force to make us come into me with the southern manufacturers, then it necessarily means that Auckland must be forced back twenty-six years. 5. Mr. Collins.] Do you mean by that, if you are compelled to pay the same rates of wages as in Christchurch and Dunedin, it will compel you to alter your method of working?— The rate per week, I agree, should be as high, but the piece-rate should not necessarily be the same, and that is the position we take up. The Court should have the power of saying that the rate per week shall be the same, but not have the power of saying " you shall produce your goods in such and such a method." Now, it is all very well for the southern manufacturers to say that the Auckland manufacturers have an advantage, but the fact of it is that the southern manufacturers have to a large extent an advantage over the Auckland manufacturers. For instance, take our firm. We manufacture for wholesale warehouses, but in Christchurch and Wellington they take tho wool

I. —10

4

from the sheep's back and make it up into garments. Therefore they have, by their natural position, an advantage as far as we are concerned; and it is my intention to bring before you garments made in the South that we in the North are unable to compete with. In order to show you the low prices of Kaiapoi clothing sold in Auckland, I have here a pair of trousers sold there by the Kaiapoi Woollen Factory at 4s. lid. ; that is the wholesale price. The garments are sold to the Queen Street people at that price. Now, we have to compete against that, but the argument of the southern people is that we have our representatives down South and we sell our goods there. They compete against us in the North, and, if we are to have a system of protection throughout the colony, let us have protection for Auckland. [Witness produces a suit of clothing.] This is sold in Auckland at 19s. 6d. Now we are asked to adopt a general system of manufacture. At the same time we should like to know how these garments are produced. There must be " sweating " somewhere—either the wool-producer, the weaver, or the workers at some other stage of manufacture. Mr. Archibald Clarke wished me to state that there was little difference in the prices they paid in their own factory and the price they could get the clothing made for in the South. In order to strengthen my argument in reference to the position of the workers, T say that, although we may turn out our clothing at a little less cost, at the same time the workers do not suffer. I explained to the employes that there was a movement on foot down South to compel them to work under the same method—under the same log and conditions as they worked under in the South—and they strongly objected. I have here a statement to the following effect: " We, the undersigned factory-employes of Archibald Clarke and Sons and G. H. Powley, do hereby heartily approve of the agreement that has been entered into between the Auckland manufacturers and the Tailoresses' Union.'' This statement is signed by about a hundred and twenty girls in our factory, and a similar number in Messrs. Clarke's factory. They were told that in signing there was no compulsion whatever, and that they signed of their own accord and freewill. This shows there has been perfect unanimity so far as employers and employed are concerned in Auckland. Again, to further show that there is this perfect unanimity, I wish to place before you this voluntary statement made by one of the workers in Mr. Powley's factory—namely, " that, having been employed for eight years in the tailoring trade in Dunedin, I affirm that the amount of wages earned per week in this factory is equal to the wages earned by those similarly employed in Dunedin ; and I also affirm that the workers in this factory are not compelled to work as hard as those employed in the factories in Dunedin." [Witness then read other statements similar to foregoing.] These are all signed by the workers themselves, who were perfectly willing and ready to sign. There was no pressure used, the " pressers " simply being sent round to ask the girls if they would sign. 6. Captain Russell.] Those statements are signed by the coatmakers employed in Powley's factory?— Yes. Now, in looking over the report of the Labour Department it will be found, as regards the wages in Auckland compared with the wages in Dunedin, that on page 66 the average wages of the piece-workers in Dunedin are from 6s. 6d. to 21s. 10d., while on page 48 the wages in Auckland are stated as from Bs. Id. to 30s. I maintain there is no sweating about that. [Witness here explained the details of the process of manufacture in the clothing trade.] With regard to clause 87, paragraph' 2, lam of opinion that the time should be extended to one month. It certainly is too short notice, as most of the mail-carriage has to be done by boat. 7. Mr. Arnold.} It says, at least seven days; it does not limit the time to seven days?—l might also point out in regard to manufacture, that coat-making pays much better than any other department in the tailoring trade. The result is that almost every girl who applies for work wishes to be taken on as a coat-maker, which has the tendency of increasing the number of workers beyond what is actually required, and that again has the effect of lowering the individual wages of the workers. 8. Mr. Lewis.] Would it suit you if an award were made under which the weekly earnings of the employes should be uniform ? —Yes, it would suit our case, and would be perfectly fair to the workers. 9. You are of opinion that all workers should be paid wages which would be equal throughout the colony ?—Yes, certainly; but, as Mr. Hercus stated, the southern factories worked under a method which is twenty-six years behind the Auckland method. We object to have the clothing trade of Auckland forced back twenty-six years. It is a bad policy, surely, to force an industry backward. The natural tendency is for it to go forward. 10. Mr. Arnold.] Would a weekly wage system altogether suit you ? —There is a difficulty in this way : that if you have a large number of employes—say, two or three hundred—you have to add extra supervision to your expenses. And when they know that they will receive a weekly wage, they do not always endeavour to do their best; they sometimes endeavour to do their worst. I question very much whether it would be advisable to say no piece-work should be done. 11. Mr. Bollard.} I understand that your contention is this : that in Auckland, under certain conditions of working and improved methods, you wish for piece-work. You pay as much for wages as is paid in any other part of the colony ?—Yes. The following is a statement of the average earnings of five coat-makers taken for thirteen consecutive weeks : 7th April—£l 3s. 5d., £1 3s. 9d., £1 2s. Id., 175., £1 4s. 4d. ; 14th April—£l Is. 7d.,£l Is. Bd., £1 4s. 6d., £1 os. 4d., £1; 21st April (Easter)—lls. Bd., 16s. 6d., 17s. Bd., away, 15s. 5d.; 28th April—£l 2s. 10d., 14s. 3d., 16s. Bd., £1 ss. 4d., £1 Is. 10d.; sth May—£l 3s. 2d., £1 3s. 9d., £1 os. 2d., 18s. 10d., £1 ss. Id.; 12th May—£l 3s. od., away ill, 17s. 7d., 17s. 10d., £1 4s. Bd.; 19th May—£l ss. lid., £1 13s. 3d., £1 2s. Id , 17s. Bd., £1 2s. 5d.; 26th May—£l 4s. 9d,, £1 Is. 6d., £1 Is. 3d., £1 Is. 4d., £1 3s. 5d.: 2nd June—£l os. 6d., £1 2s. 2d., 17s. 4d., 17s. 3d., £1 2s. 9d.; 9th June—£l 4s. Id., £1 2s. 2d., £1 Is., 19s. 2d., £1 4s. 6d.; 16th June —£1 65., £1 4s. Bd., £1 2s. 4d., 17s. Bd., £1 Is. Bd.; 23rd June—£l Is., £1 25., £1 Is. Id., away, £1 6s. lid.; 30th June—£l 55., £1 3s. 7d., 18s. Id., £1 Bs., £1 Is. 6d : totals—£l4 12s. lid. for thirteen weeks, average £1 2s. 6Jd.; £13 9s. 3d. for

5

L—lo

twelve weeks, average £1 2s. 5Jd.; £13 Is. lOd. for thirteen weeks, average £1 Os. l£d.; £11 Os. sd. for eleven weeks, average £1 Os. OJd.; £14 14s. 6d. for thirteen weeks, average £1 2s. Bd. Average, including given holidays—Good Friday, Easter Saturday, Easter Monday, Queen's Birthday—£l Is. 7d. per week. This, you will notice, includes Easter and the half-holiday given at the time Ladysmith was relieved. We closed last Easter from Thursday night to the following Tuesday morning. Now, Ido not think these are poor wages for girls to earn, including occasional absences from other causes. 12. Mr. Laurenson.] What are the number of hours worked per week?— Forty-seven and three-quarters. 13. Mr. Bollard.] I understand you say that, so far as wages earned are concerned, you are perfectly satisfied to be brought into line with any other part of the colony on a weekly basis ?— Yes. 14. It is piece-work you take exception to? —Yes. All manufacturers should have the privilege of paying what they consider a fair rate for any piece-work, provided it secures to the workers a wage equal to the rates fixed by the Arbitration Court or Conciliation Board. 15. Mr. Tanner.] You are agreed as to the wages, but you say that the methods of working should not be interfered with ?—Yes. Geokge Henby Blackwell in attendance and examined. (No. 3.) 1. The Chairman.] What is your name ? —George Henry Blackwell. 2. You are managing director of the Kaiapoi Woollen Company, are you not ?—I am, Sir; but lam not appearing here in that capacity. I appear here as the representative of the Canterbury Employers' Association. 3. You desire to give evidence in connection with this Bill, do you not ? —Yes. The Committee of the Association met and considered the Bill, and as a result they have drawn up their views, a type-written copy of which they have authorised me to submit to the Labour Bills Committee. I have here type-written copies of their recommendations, which I will submit to you. 4. Are these recommendations confined to new matter ?—There are one or two general recommendations which are not in the Bill. I may say, Mr. Chairman, that the views of the Canterbury Employers' Association are fully expressed in the type-written copy which I propose to submit to you. 5. Have you anything to say in connection with the matter, or do you simply put these in for the Committee ? —There is a clause in the new Bill which we are not at all clear about. I think we have embodied our views fully in the statement in regard to subsection (3) of clause 86, in order to see how far that might meet the case mentioned by the Judge of the Arbitration Court. With regard to subsection (3), " power to extend the award," the Committee were in doubt as to whether that amended clause simply referred to the industrial district or whether it would be made applicable to the whole colony. 6. It is intended to be applicable to the whole colony ?—The Committee understood that if the award applied to Wellington it might be extended to Petone, and in other towns in the district. 7. Is there any other point you desire to give information upon ?—I should like to emphasise the last clause in the recommendations : " The Canterbury Employers' Association desire to impress upon the Government that they are thoroughly in accord with the principles laid down in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Any hostility they may have shown in the past was mainly due to the fact that the Act was made to apply to a certain section of the industrial community only. The Government now propose to remove this, and if the Bill now before the House is amended in the directions suggested by the Association they are strongly of opinion that it would be impossible to conceive of a more useful measure, properly administered, that would prove of such immense benefit to all sections of the industrial community; and with this in view the Association urge upon the Government to reconsider their determination not to allow this Act to apply to all workers under the Crown." There is no antagonism now, whatever there may have been in the past. We desire to co-operate in making the present Bill a good, workable measure. Now, as managing director of the Kaiapoi Woollen Company, I should like to say that I interviewed the Committee last year on the same subject, and a remedy was sought to be obtained. I hope the desired amendment will be made, so that the award may be made universal throughout the colony on interchangeable commodities. Hereupon the witness submitted the following statement in writing to the Committee :— Recommendations by the Bills Committee of the Canterbury Employers' Association, re the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Bill. The Parliamentary Bills Committee of the Canterbury Employers' Association have considered the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, at present before the House, and have agreed to make the following recommendations :— The Committee are of opinion that the Conciliation Boards, as at present constituted, are absolutely useless, and would prefer that no provision should be made for them rather than they should be oontinued on existing lines. The Committee desire further to express the opinion that if Boards of Conciliation could be made expert in their constitution good work would be accomplished, and the demands made upon the time of the Courts of Arbitration would be considerably less than at present. A large number of disputes are more or less of a technical character, and ought, therefore, to be dealt with by persons who understand not only the technical terms of the trade but the effect of proposed alterations which mighc emanate from either party to the dispute. The Committee suggest that five central Boards of Conciliation should be established—namely, at Auckland, Wellington, Christchurcb, Dunedin, and Westport. The last-mentioned place, being the centre of a large mining district, and removed by a great distance from Wellington and Christchuroh, where mining interests are not speoially represented, a Board would be a special convenience to that district. The Boards should consist of a sufficient number of employers and workers —say twenty-four of each—to ensure that all trades or occupations would be represented. A dispute being lodged with the Eegistrar in respect to any industry or calling, the Board would then elect from its own members a Special Board, consisting of four persons, together with a permanent Chairman, to deal with this particular dispute, two at least of which 3hould be experts in the trade or calling associated with the reference to the Board.

I.—lo

6

The Committee are of opinion that such a Board would claim the respect and confidence of all sections of employers and workers. It must be admitted that many of the recommendations made by the Boards of Conciliation under the existing Act have been inconsistent with tlie evidence given, and that the Court of Arbitration has taken little or no notice of the recommendations', but have found it necessary to start inquiry without reference to evidence in the lower Court. The Committee wish to say that they do not attribute this in any way to lack of interest on the part of the Boards, but to the fact that they are not, from want of technical knowledge, able to deal effectively with the disputes in question. Tiie Committee think that if the constitution of the Boards was fixed on the lines suggested above, it would be necessary for all documents and evidence produced in the lower Court to be available for the Court of Arbitration ; otherwise they think the report useless. The Committee are of opinion that, especially in connection with awards referring to the production of interchangeable goods, it is absolutely necessary that uniform conditions should prevail throughout the colony, and a special clause should be inserted in the Bill giving the Court of Arbitration power to fix an award which would apply to all workers and employers throughout the colony. Clause 2, Subsection (d).— The Committee suggest that the Bill should make it clear that if preference of employment is given to members of the union of workmen, preference of service should be given by unions of workmen to unions of employers. Clause 2, Subsection (c). —The clause appears to cover all classes of employers and all classes of workers of either sex, but the Committee think that it should make it clear that all work done in connection with any particular business, trade, manufacture, undertaking, calling, or employment in which an award has been made, should be subject to the conditions of work and rates of pay ruling under the award, whether or not the parties engaged in such work have been made parties to the award, or whether they are union or non-union, and that the same penalties for any breach of the award should apply to all workers and employers in that particular industry. Clause 12, Subsection (2). —This does not appear to the Committee to be quite clear. If it is intended to mean that no unions of workmen, or individual member of a union of workmen, can carry on trading, manufacturing, or mercantile operations, or any operations for pecuniary gain, and retain his membership of such union, we oonsider this to be a very good provision. Clause 17 (1). —The work of compiling the returns in the larger associations is enormous, and the Committee submit that the forwarding of the returns to the Registrar once every twelve months should be sufficient for all purposes of the Act. Clause 17, Subsection (5). —The Committee think this subsection should be struck out, on the ground that the organization is admitted by the Registrar, that he is supplied with the name and address of the executive officer, and that the penalty provided in subsection (4) should bo sufficient to ensure the Act being complied with. Clause 21. —The Committee think this clause should be amended in respect to employers, owing to the fact that the number of employers neoessary to form a union is large compared with the smaller number of men, and to insist upon four industrial unions of employers to form an industrial association might prevent industrial associations of employers being formed, which evidently is not the intention of the Bill. And the Committee's proposal is not inconsistent with Clause 5 of the Bill, which provides that a leas number of employers can form a union than of workers. Suggest that three unions of employers be sufficient to form an association. Clause 41, Subsection (4). —The Committee suggest that all the words after "imprisonment" should be struck out, on the ground that any man who commits an offence punishable by imprisonment for any term is not a fit and proper person to administer justice. Clause 41, Subsection (5). —The Committee suggest that after the word "vacant" the following should be added : —" Unless he has the permission of the Board for absence for a period not exceeding three months." Clause 86, Subsection (3), Line 5. —The Committee recommend that the word "or" should be struck out, and that, after " employer," " or workmen " should be added. The Committee suggest that ia addition to the official copy deposited with the Registrar, giving the recommendation of the Board of Conciliation, or the award of the Court of Arbitration, as the case may be, a copy should be given to the parties before the Board or Court, signed by the Registrar as a correct copy of the document filed. The present arrangement of taking a copy at the Court is most inconvenient, and should be altered. The Committee consider that the term of office of the Board and Court is far too short. They recommend six years in preference to three years. It takes a considerable time for members of either the Board or Court to thoroughly grasp the work in connection with the administration of the Act, and the liability to change at frequent intervals is considered unwise. The Committee recommend that provision should be made in the Bill that evidence of a technical and private character led by either party should be considered confidential, and not be reported in the public Press. The Committee draw attention to the inconvenienoe sometimes caused by only three days being given by the Registrar to parties to appear before the Board or Court. A much longer notice should be given, certainly not less than twenty-one days, and that the notice to appear should contain a copy of the plaint. The Canterbury Employers' Association desire to impress upon the Government that thfy are thoroughly in accord with the principles laid down in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Any hostility they may have shown in the past was mainly duo to tha fact that the Act was made to apply to a certain section of the industrial community only. The Government now propose to remove this, and, if the Bill now before the House is amended in the directions suggested by the Association, they are strongly of opinion that it would be impossible to conceive of a more useful measure, properly administered, that would prove of sucjh immense benefit to all sections of the industrial community, and, with this in view, the Association urge upon the Government to reconsider their determination not to allow the Act to apply to all workers under the Crown. Jas. A. Fbostick, President Canterbury Employers' Association. Christchurch, 9th July, 1900. Allan Obe in attendance and examined. (No. 4.) 1. The Chairman.] —Your name is Allan Orr?—Yes. 2. You represent the Wellington Drivers' Union ?—Yes. 3. You desire to give evidence on some new matters contained in this Bill ?—Yes, sir. There is one matter, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, that materially affects us. We are one of those unions not properly recognised as such. We are going before the Arbitration Court on Monday next, and we are in this position : We will be debarred from any further benefits, and simply thrown back into our original position. My union instructed me to ask the Committee that recommendation be made that where a union has gone before the Conciliation Board it shall not bo compelled to go on to the Court until the Act is amended. Our union spent between £50 and £60 when before the Conciliation Board, and the employers probably spent a similar amount, and we failed to fall in with the recommendations of the Board. Whilst it cost us that amount, it cost the Government between £100 and £200. Now, we wish Mr. Justice Martin to adjourn our case in order that it may come on when the Act is amended. 4. You desire to go to the Court direct without going to the Board at all ? You want a special clause put in the Act ? —I think that either the employers or the employes should go to the Arbitration Court without going back to the Conciliation Board. It would prevent friction, providing that that option were given. There is one matter which my union is very strong on —with regard to preference, as, of course, all unions are. We feel that the preference clause is to a great extent the backbone of the unions. In speaking on the preference clause in Eeefton, the late

7

I.—lo

President of the Arbitration Court—Judge Edwards—expressed himself in this way, if I may be permitted to quote his words. He said to the mine-owners : "You are not obliged to employ union men. If you object to them you can get men from anywhere, and simply get them to join the union." Now, we claim that our rules are broad on the question. Any person meeting the secretary in the street should be able to join by paying the necessary subscription, for it might be that the man may have work to go to at once. 5. Captain BusselL] Do you mean any person irrespective of character ? Well, the proposer and seconder would have to certify as to his character. I may say that the Carriers' Union have asked the City Council to refuse to grant licenses to men who are not of good character—men who, perhaps, have been in gaol. 6. Bight Hon. the Premier.] An interim permit should be given to him, subject to confirmation by the society later on. —Yes, that is so. 7. The Chairman.] Do you propose here that, instead of saying "may," we should put in "shall" in the interpretation clause, union members to be employed in preference to non-union men ?—We are entirely agreed on that. Mr. Quick, in speaking on the Conciliation Board here, said that the object of giving preference to union men was in part to recompense them for depriving them of the power to strike ; that where a union was sufficiently strong in numbers preference should be given to them, because the right to strike had been taken from them, and the only power they had would be to establish preference of employment. Clause 3 of our rules reads as follows : "The objects shall be—(l.) To correct abuses; (2.) To initiate reforms; (3.) To assist employers in every reasonable and just demand; (4.) To assist employers in every case of wrongdoing or dishonesty on the part of employes ; (5.) To provide a legal expenses fund ; (6.) To inaugurate schemes having for their object the benefiting of members morally, socially, politically, and intellectually ; (7.) To assist co-workers in difficulties." Then, again, clause 15 says : " The Committee shall have power to inflict fines not exceeding £10 for unfair practices and breaches of the union rules, and shall have full power of taking evidence, both orally and documentary, in support or defence of any such breach or unfair practice." We claim that an employe belonging to a union will certainly make a better employe than one outside the union. Further, we say there is no employer who will take exception to these conditions and rules. I would like to say this : The Government is now experimenting here in Wellington with their own traps, horses, and men in collecting the mails : the reason being that there was formerly a contract for that work without any stipulations, and for the heavy work the stipulations were, as to wages, the current rate The employers were employing men and boys at a very small wage, and worked them all hours. We drew the attention of the Premier to this fact. Mr. Seddon, speaking at the Basin Eeserve, said it was a most diabolical system of sweating, as bad as had come under his notice. Thus the Government employ their own traps, horses, and men for the mail-collecting; and in regard to the other work a contract was made. In regard to this contract drivers were to work the maximum number of hours per week (forty-eight), and receive £2 ss. We found, however, that the contractors were not paying this wage, and so far satisfied the Government of the fact that last week they (the Government) cancelled the contract. We had two union men working among eighteen or twenty others, and the only men whom we could get to stand by us in this matter were the two union men ; and what was the consequence ? Why, they were dismissed; they lost their billets through it. We agree with clause 3, " The Minister for Labour shall have the administration of this Act." We consider that the Labour Bureau is the proper department to have control of the Act. As regards multiplicity of unions, this is a matter we are very strong on. Take the Drivers' Union, there are 227 members in its ranks. 8. Mr. Morrison.] In Wellington ? —Yes. When we were before the Conciliation Board we had nine different awards. The employes claim that their different industries all require to be considered, for one class of drivers were busier at one time of the year than another. The branches are so wide. Compare the cordial-makers with the sand and gravel proprietors of Wellington. These men are in this position: whilst the principal employers sign these awards, there are four or five others who will not sign, and when we come before the Court on Monday we will be told that it is no good (the award) because it has no jurisdiction. We say that if you want to succeed you must have a properly consolidated measure to work upon. If any other drivers want redress, let them come to us and join our union. My instructions have been to always meet employers in every reasonable way, to offer no obstacle whatever, and as a proof to-day there are two agreements duly registered. We consider that, whatever you do, do not have a lot of mushroom unions cropping up ; let there be one proper union to carry out the necessary work in each trade and district. Now, with regard to Clause 14, I will say that it is a good clause ; for example, supposing the Wellington Drivers' Union here have members of their union working in Palmerston North, who may say, " We feel disposed to form a little branch of our own." Now, whilst we do not want a lot of small unions cropping up, I think that is a privilege which ought to be given. As regards subclause (3) of clause 86, we say that where the Board has been successful in settling a dispute, and, say, one-half or more than one-half of the employers agree that the Board should have extended jurisdiction in that direction, that they could make the others party to the dispute whether they liked it or not. We are very strong on the Conciliation Board being left intact. We consider that if you touch the Conciliation Board at all you are getting at the whole root of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. I may say that Mr. J. J. Curtis, one of the largest carrying firms in Wellington, is to-morrow going to sign our agreement not to go before the Court. Now, our trouble is not as a rule with the large employers. lam speaking for my own union when I say we have no trouble with them, and instead of creating dissension we are on better terms with the larger employers than we were before the union was formed. I say that without fear of contradiction we are brought in touch with the employers much more, and are on a far more friendly footing than hitherto. Clause 37, subsection (7) :We think that the time should be fourteen days instead of ten. There is another

I.—lo

8

matter here I should like to refer to—clause 52, subsection (9): My Union is of the opinion that, where the Judge is satisfied that a trade is not likely to be affected, that the term be extended to three years instead of two. We say that three should be the existing law. 9. Mr. Lewis.] As a maximum term, of course?— Yes. 10. With regard to clause 96,1 should like to ask you if you consider it is a wise provision that no dispute shall be brought forward except by a special resolution of the meeting ? Would you be willing that in every case the vote should be by ballot, or would you have any exception to the vote being by ballot ? —I think it should be optional. According to our union rules any two men can demand a ballot. 11. Are the rules of other unions similar in that respect?— Friendly societies are on the same footing. That concludes my evidence, Mr. Chairman.

Feiday, 13th July, 1900. Miss Ada F. Whitehokn, Secretary of the Dunedin Tailoresses' Union, and Miss Maey Daly, Secretary of the Wellington Tailoresses' Union, in attendance and examined. (Nos. 5 and 6.) 1. The Chairman.] I understand you ladies desire to give evidence in connection with this Bill—lndustrial Conciliation and Arbitration. Will you afford to the Committee as briefly as possible your views in connection with this matter, leaving all the clauses which you approve of alone, simply telling us of the clauses which you object to, and making any suggestions you consider necessary in regard to any particular clause ? Miss Whitehorn : In regard to clause 75, " Powers of Court," I should like the addition of this clause, which I will read to the Committee : "In the case of a dispute affecting a registered industrial association under this Act, the Court shall have power, if sufficient evidence is adduced in support of same, to make an award applicable to the whole of the industrial districts in the colony." 2. The Chairman.] And you desire to have this inserted—this new clause which you suggest ? —Yes. 3. In the event of it being put in clause 75 would it not, in your opinion, practically wipe out subsection (3) of clause 86 ?—Yes. 4. Mr. Leivis.] Still, so long as it goes in somewhere you really do not care where; is that so ?—Yes. 5. The Chairman.] You are aware, I suppose, that subsection (3) of clause 86 gives power to extend the award? —We understand it applies only to the district. 6. It is supposed to bind any party thereto in any specified industrial association in the colony. Now you desire that the Court should be given power to make a general award over the whole of the colony ? —Yes; I think that after hearing the evidence the Court should have that power. 7. That is to say, where there is an industrial agreement already drawn up, if you desire to add further to it you are to be given that power? —Yes, sir, that is our desire. 8. Is this the only clause you wish to refer to ? —Yes, that is the only one. 9. Then I suppose you have some special reasons for desiring that addition being put in—Yes ; I have a petition here signed by over twelve hundred tailoresses and all the employers in the three centres, Christchurch, Dunedin, and Wellington. We have another one yet to come with from three to five hundred signatures. So far we have not been able to go round all the factories yet. 10. Are those the signatures of persons at present employed in the trade?— Yes. 11. Mr. Morrison.] In Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin?—Yes. 12. Mr. Arnold.] And also the signatures of the employers in the three towns ?—Yes. 13. The Chairman.] You purpose putting this in to the House?— Well, we would ask your advice as to that. The Premier yesterday told us to bring it to you. 14. It would be better to hand it to us. If you present it to the House it will go to the Classifications Committee, and that Committee will send it on here.—Very well, sir, I will hand in this petition signed by over twelve hundred employers and employes in Dunedin, Christchurch, and Wellington. 15. I presume, then, that something has led up to all this ? —Yes, Mr. Chairman. I might say that the Dunedin union has been in existence for over ten years ; and during that time they have done everything in their power to get Auckland into federation, to form a union, but have met with no success whatever. The Dunedin union has spent hundreds of pounds in trying to bring Auckland in. The secretary of the Dunedin Union was up in Auckland for eight months, and also the president, Mr. Pinkerton. No later than last year-we sent up two girls to try to get them to federate, but met with no success at all. We have had occasion to go before the Conciliation Board, but we were unable to get any satisfaction whatever owing to the disparity in the prices. The matter was referred to the Arbitration Court for settlement, with the consent of both parties; but the Judge of the Arbitration Court was not in a position to give any decision. He said he could not give a decision without being unfair to one side or the other. Now, Sir, we feel that something must be done or else, if further reduction takes place, it will mean the breaking up of all the unions. We ask that the Judge, after hearing evidence, should have the power to make the same award applicable all over the colony. 16. Miss Daly, do you desire to say anything in reference to this Bill?—I have only this to say : I honestly indorse everything said by Miss Whitehorn. I have been a member of the union and an officer ever since it has been in existence, and was a member of the Dunedin union when it was first formed; and I know that everything Miss Whitehorn has said is correct. With regard to the recent dispute, we have gone to considerable expense over and over again in trying to get an award from the Court, but we were unable to get one for a period longer than six months, The last award we had was only for three months and unless something is done to

9

I.—lo

help us all the unions will be broken up. It seems useless to go again and again to the Court; and not get an award for any length of time. The case is scarcely over when you have to commence again, and there is continual friction. To me there seems to be no way out of the difficulty. We have done all we could. I myself do not think that the Auckland girls are satisfied. I think they are, in'a way, afraid of being marked girls always if they take any particular part in the matter, and thus when they know their employers are not favourable to their being in the union it means keeping them out of it. Ido not believe myself that the girls are satisfied. Miss Whitehorn: I should like to say that the union returns for 1899 for the three centres— Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin—showed considerably over a thousand members. The number of the Auckland Tailoresses' Union is only sixty-six. Miss Daly : I think it is hardly fair that this number should be the means of preventing fifteen hundred from getting an award for simply a living wage, which is all we ask for. 17. Mr. Arnold.'] Supposing the Court simply had the power to provide a minimum wage of so much per week, the work at the same time being done at so much per garment in the different towns on an even log; although it might be that an Auckland girl, for instance, would earn that wage through putting a greater number of articles through her hands, though the work perhaps was done in an inferior manner, while in the South you would do a lesser quantity of work but of a better quality. Do you think a system such as that would be possible ? Miss Daly : I do not think a weekly wage would be objected to were it on the same footing throughout the colony. 18. Mr. Arnold.'] A piece-work system, but the minimum wage to be fixed at so much per week? Miss Daly : It would really mean the maximum. Ido not think an employer, except in very exceptional cases, would pay more. Of course, we have girls earning as much as £1 10s. in the factories, but they are few—only one or two. We have one or two in Wellington earning £1 10s. a week. 19. Mr. Morrison.'] Weekly wage ? Miss Daly : Yes. Of course there is a great deal of difference in the wages the girls earn. For instance, coat-makers earn far more than trouser-makers. Trouser-rnakers' wages are particularly small. 20. Mr. Arnold.] In your factories, I suppose, girls could earn a different rate of wages on account of the system of work and the difference in trade appliances ? . : Miss Daly : Yes. In some factories girls can make more than in others. Miss Whitehorn: As far as the appliances are concerned, we are quite as up-to-date as they are in Auckland. The machinery in the three Southern towns is quite as up-to-date as it is in Auckland. 21. Mr. Arnold.] Supposing one manufacturer has an advantage—a slight advantage—over another in consequence of his appliances, do not you think it would be fair to say that one man shall be able to have a garment made for, say, Is. 3d., while the other should have to pay Is. 4d., assuming that a girl could earn as much in one factory as the other ? Would it not be fair to the employe ? Miss Daly : A girl receives less if a manufacturer has extra machinery. The payment for portions of garments which are done by machinery is deducted from the wage. 22. Mr. Tanner.] You do not ask for payment for work you do not perform ? Miss Daly : No, we do not. In that respect everything is taken off—-everything deducted. We do not get paid for anything we do not do. 23. Mr. Arnold.] Eegarding the manner in which the work is done: Supposing appliances have nothing to do with it, and it is simply a question of the employer not being so exacting—that though the work may be inferior he passes it—very well. If you have the same log for each town, the employes in the town where perhaps the work is done in an inferior manner will receive a very much higher wage at per week than those in the other towns, will they not?—lf they turned out a greater quantity, of course they would. 24. Do you not think the question is as to whether the employer should not have some share in the profit that is derived in consequence of the quantity of work that is being burned out ? Miss Whitehorn : I am quite in favour of a fair minimum wage being fixed which the girl could earn —a fair living wage. The piece-workers are suffering more and more every day. The weekly workers are looked after, but not so the piece-hands : they have to wait day after day. A weekly and piece-work system together would, I think, be satisfactory. 25. What have you to say with regard to one employer passing work which another one would not ? Miss Daly : There are certain things, of course, done to garments ; a girl has to go through a certain routine in making a garment, and one employer might pass it and another would perhaps give it back again. In this way a girl might be able to make a few shillings more per week through one employer passing work which another would not. That is the case, I may say, in any town. 26. The Chairman.] You cannot get over that?— No. 27. Mr. Arnold.] You are of opinion that the whole matter should be left to the Court? Miss Whitehorn: Yes, we think that would be the more satisfactory way. 28. Mr. Tanner.] Following up this line of examination : Would not a colonial award, providing for a uniform rate of wages throughout the colony, have the effect of bringing up poor qualities of work to the same level as the other? Would not the employers expect the.full value of the wages they gave ? —Yes, I think so. 29. With regard to your knowledge of the difference between the Auckland and the southern systems, is it a fact that Auckland possesses far better appliances, and that the South is a generation behind the times in clothing manufactures ?—No, certainly not. We have just as up-to-date appliances in the three centres as in Auckland. That was proved before the Arbitration Court.

2—l. 10.

I.—lo

10

30. Is there anything of the " team " system or " slave " system ofvAmerica in your trade ?— There is a system where work hands and machinists all work together. The machinists' wages are dependent upon the wages of the other girls; i.e., supposing the girls make £1 per week, the machinists would also make the same. 31. You are perfectly satisfied that the southern towns are as well equipped in every way as Auckland ?—Yes ; we understand that the management is very much better. In the Arbitration Court an Auckland clothing manager gave evidence, and it was proved that the southern management was much better. 32. You are perfectly satisfied that, with your ten years' experience, there is absolutely no cure for the difficulty except a uniform award ?—Yes, I am perfectly satisfied of that. 33. Have you seen this Bill now under consideration by the Committee ?—Yes. 34. In your judgment does clause 85 sufficiently provide for power being given to make a uniform award ?—We have suggested an amendment. 35. Mr. Morrison.] Have eilher of you ladies worked in Auckland? Miss Whitehorn : No, we have not; but we sent two girls from Dunedin specially to work there. We have a girl in Wellington now who was working in Auckland quite recently. 36. Therefore your knowledge of the appliances in Auckland is only from information you have received in your capacity as officers of your unions ?—Yes. 37. Information received from employes who have worked there?— Yes; and from Mr. Broughton, who was manager of Clarke's factory in Auckland. 38. Is that a large factory ?—The largest in Auckland. 39. You are thoroughly satisfied that, as far as the appliances are concerned, Wellington, Dunedin, and Christchurch are as up-to-date as Auckland ?—Yes, I am quite satisfied. 40. In reply to a question put to you, you stated that there were over twelve hundred employes in the unions in the three centres, and that there were only sixty-six in Auckland who belonged to the union ? —Yes, that is so. 41. Can you give us an idea of the number of girls who are employed as tailoresses in the various branches in Christchurch, Dunedin, and Wellington who are not unionists ?—ln Dunedin there are no non-unionists, in Christchurch there are none, and in Wellington there are very few. 42. How many girls are employed in the tailoressing department in Auckland?— About five hundred. 43. And you say only sixty-six belong to the union ?—Yes. 44. That is five hundred as compared with twelve hundred ?—We have fifteen hundred at the very lowest. 45. So the number of employes in this business in the three centres numbers fifteen hundred? —Yes, quite fifteen hundred. 46. At any period in the history of the Dunedin union did you send girls to Auckland to work there?— Yes, no later than last year. We sent girls up to try to reorganize the union, and find out the system and methods of working. These girls worked up there for six weeks, and then came down and made a report. 47. Will you kindly tell us the nature of that report—that is, unless it be of a private or confidential nature ? —lt is in regard to wages. The wages of one of the girls, who, I may say, was an exceptionally good hand and was engaged on exhibition work, could not be taken as a fair test— I mean you could not go by her wages. She received £1 per week, and the other girl, who was employed on piece-work at trouser-making, received from 10s. to 12s. per week. 48. The girl whom you said was engaged on exhibition work, and received £1 per week— what wage could that girl command elsewhere than in Auckland?—£l ss. a week. 49. And with regard to the girl who was employed at trouser-making on piece-work—what could she command in either Wellington, Christchurch, or Dunedin on a similar class of work?— This class of work, trouser-finishing, does not command good pay. As a weekly hand she would receive about 18s. a week. 50. Yes, but I want to know, if she had been on piece-work, doing similar work in accordance with the manner in which it is done in the three other centres, what wages would she earn ?—I should say from 18s. to £1 per week. 51. Is there a tailoresses' log in Auckland at all, or is each employer an authority in regard to it?—We understand that a log has not been kept at all. The last agreement has just run out. There is a clause which says that if any employer breaks away from the agreement the whole thing becomes null and void. So there is practically no log. 52. The Chairman.} Have you a copy of that agreement ?—Yes, I will hand it in. 53. Mr. Morrison.] Perhaps it would be advisable to have the Dunedin log as well.—l could show you the two logs. 54. Mr. Tanner.] Will you read that passage you have just referred to ?—I have not got it here. It is at home in a scrap-book of mine. 55. Will you hand those documents in this afternoon, then ?—Yes. 56. The Chairman.] I understand that you will hand these documents in this afternoon in order to supplement what you have stated?— Yes. 57. Mr. Morrison.] You are thoroughly satisfied that this subclause of clause 86, if amended by inserting the words " in the colony " and embodied in this Bill and passed, will meet the particular point to which you have referred? —Yes. 58. And you state that the employers of Dunedin, Christchurch, and Wellington are in thorough sympathy in regard to a universal award ?—Yes, so long as there is a uniform award throughout the colony where goods are interchangeable we are satisfied. 59. Have you any idea of the class of work turned out in Auckland ? —Yes, 60. Is it a lighter class of work ?—Yes. $1, More slovenly put together?— Yes,

I.—lo

11

62. Mr. Bollard.] Are you aware that as regards the wages earned in Auckland compared with other parts of the colony, there is very little difference?—l understand that the statement of wages given in the labour returns are mixed up with the shop-girls' wages. The shop-girls in Auckland earn as good wages as they do in other parts of the colony. 63. But I want you to state from your own experience?—l have not bad any experience in Auckland. lam not in a position to say what they earn. I can only speak from the knowledge I have gained from girls we have sent up there. 64. Supposing that Mr. Hercus was to say that there was very little difference in the wages earned by tailoresses in Auckland and in other parts of the colony, what would you say ?—I could not deny it, for I could not prove it was not so. 65. Are you aware that southern clothing is sold cheaper in Auckland than the Aucklandmade clothing ?—No; I am not aware of it. 66. With regard to the wages of tailoresses in, say, Christchureh, Wellington, and Dunedin, is it a fair wage : are you satisfied with it ?—ln some lines we are not. 67. You do not consider it a living wage, taken on the average ?—lt is not a living wage in some lines. 68. But I want you to take the average ?—Well, I think it would be too much to say that the average was not a living wage. 69. If the Court were to make an award giving the same rate of wages without interfering with the log, would that be satisfactory?—l am not prepared to say that it would be, because the question has not been discussed by the unions. I am not prepared to say whether they would accept such an award. I think that if the matter was threshed out before the Arbitration Court, and the Judge to decide, it would be more satisfactory. 70. Supposing a southern gentleman, largely interested in the matter, was to say that the South was twenty-six years behind Auckland in regard to appliances, what would you say ? —I should say it was not true. 71. Notwithstanding this southern gentleman says so? —Yes; I should say that in my opinion the statement was incorrect, for it is from personal knowledge of my own when I say that the southern appliances are equally up to date. We have the latest machinery and the same appliances. 72. How do you account for the fact that garments made in the South are sold cheaper in Auckland than the Auckland-manufactured goods?—l cannot account for it at all. Before the Arbitration Court some of the southern employers handed in their books to the Court in order to show the loss they suffered through the keen competition. 73. Was not that their own fault if they were underselling the Auckland manufacturers?—l understand it was in order to compete with Auckland that necessitated their selling their goods for less money. ~ 74. The Chairman.] What do you consider a fair wage, supposing a girl was fully employed in the South—in Wellington, Christchureh, or Dunedin —at your log rates ? —From £1 to £1 2s. 6d. a week. Of course, some classes of work do not pay and others do. Some weeks a girl will earn more than others. Of course that is customary. 75. I think that is all now, Miss Whitehorn. I have suggested that you should supplement your evidence by handing in documentary evidence in connection with the agreement entered into by the Auckland Union? —Very well, Mr. Chairman. 76. Mr. Tanner.] I should just like to ask the witnesses if they are aware of any keen competition prevailing—of a powerful firm selling goods at actually below cost price in order to drive rivals out of the field ? Miss Whitehorn: Yes. 77. Mr. Tanner."] Well, would that be a tenable hypothesis to explain the fact of the cheap garments selling in Auckland that came from the South ? —Yes ; I think so. That fact was proved beyond a doubt before the Arbitration Court, as the Judge asked for figures. 78. Do you mean that it was admitted that firms sold articles below cost price for the purpose of keeping their footing in other towns ?—Yes. Chaelbs Cathie in attendance and examined. (No. 7.) 1. The Chairman.'] Your name is Charles Cathie ? —Yes. 2. You are a clothing manufacturer, resident here?— Yes. 3. Do you represent any association ?—Yes, I am a representative of the Masters' Association. 4. You represent the Clothing Manufacturers' Association ?—Yes, the Wellington branch. We are affiliated with Christchureh and Dunedin. 5. You desire to give evidence in connection with this Bill?— Yes. 6. Will you give us your evidence upon any clause to which you object ? —I may say, sir, the clause which I wish to see enlarged is subsection (3) of clause 86. 7. You desire to see the Court given power to make a colonial award?— Yes. I wish to say that formerly I used to get a fair share of work from one particular house which I do not get now. I assume we are in competition. Archibald Clarke and Sons, of Auckland, sell goods in this district, and there are two firms in Wellington selling Auckland manufactures. I wish to agree with the workers and give them what is right—a fair wage. lam of the opinion that there should be a uniformity of award throughout the colony upon interchangeable goods. One can see that an award does not necessarily affect other trades to a large extent. Auckland manufactures are largely sold here. The Wellington Woollen Company have already made a start in this direction by getting some of the work made in Auckland, and this is a matter of equal interest to the workers and masters. We are at one with the unions on this point. It is, to my mind, a question of whether they (the unions) will have to go down, or whether Auckland will have to come up. I think that is practically all I have to say.

I.—lo

12

8. Mr. Arnold.] Do you know anything about the wages paid in Auckland per week ?—All I know is from their own log. Occasionally we have had girls who had been working in Auckland come to Wellington, and on one or two occasions I have endeavoured to find out what wage they could make in Auckland; but I was not able to gather any evidence to the effect that they were getting the maximum wage. 9. Did these girls tell you anything as regards the method of working?— Yes. 10. They work under a different system, do they not?— Yes. We have not been free to adopt these methods, although we know about them. 11. They have more advanced methods in Auckland, have they not?— They have a greater division of labour—more of a " team " system, I take it to be. I should not like to be tied to the Auckland method. It is a trade that you may see your way to improve. There should be freedom of method in order to suit the small manufacturer as well as the large manufacturer. We want labour legislation to provide freedom so that manufacturers if they choose will not be hampered. 12. In consequence of the method is it not a fact that in Auckland girls can earn as much money as those in the South on a lower log? —I cannot say. lam not aware, as a matter of common business, that a manufacturer adopts a new and labour-saving method to ostensibly benefit his workers ; he does it to benefit himself. 13. As far as you know, then, the girls in Auckland do not earn so much?— That is my opinion. I may say I have spoken to one or two men who have been employed as cutters in Auckland, and they seem to bear out the same view. I had a man who used to be in Archibald Clarke's factory. He was the first to let me know that there they worked forty-eight hours as against our forty-five. Similarly, on visiting the Kaiapoi factory, I was told by another man who came from Auckland that £1 was nearer the top wage than £1 ss. £1 ss. is the top wage under our log, but to a special hand I pay £1 10s. a week. I pay £1 10s. a week to a girl if I find she is worth it. If her work suits me and my customers, of course it pays me to keep her and pay her this wage. 14. Mr. Arnold.] You are of opinion that the whole matter would be safe in the hands of the Court of Arbitration, then ? —Yes, I think so. 15. You think justice would be done to the whole colony?— Yes, I do not doubt it for a moment. I think we have reason to have confidence in the Arbitration Court. 16. Mr. Tanner.] Is the minimum wage stipulated for in your log £1 ss.? —No ; that is the maximum wage for a first-class hand, or machinist—a time hand. 17. That is the highest rate the log stipulates for ?—Yes. 18. You do not regard yourself as absolutely tied to that in the case of a skilled worker whom you wish to retain ?—Oh, no; if I wish to keep that worker as an example to the others, it is worth my while to pay an additional ss. a week and keep her. 19. Do you think it has any tendency to breed discontent at all among other hands ?— No, not at all. I can get along with my workers very comfortably. A girl who is a good worker has special opportunities for acquiring a good knowledge of various things in the trade. 20. And so she gets exceptional wages ?—Yes. 21. Mr. Bollard.] I should like to ask you if you have taken into consideration the lighter class of goods manufactured in Auckland, and in consequence of a different award to any other part of the colony, what effect it would have upon workers ? —I know there is a lighter class of work turned out in Auckland. In regard to certain coats, our log provides for a higher rate than Auckland would pay. 22. Are you aware that the workers in Auckland are earning the same as in other parts of the colony ?—No, lam not aware of that. lam giving you the information I have been able to gather —that it is not so. Of course I could not go to a manufacturer in Auckland and ask him to show me his books. 23. Can you account for the fact that the southern-manufactured article is sold cheaper in Auckland than the Auckland-manufactured article ?—I was not aware of the fact, because I do not know that much of the southern clothing goes there. The Kaiapoi, for instance, might do a certain line cheaper. There is a vast difference in the quality of tweeds—for example, you cannot compare the Onehunga-manufactured article with the Wellington article. I should say that the Kaiapoi have a margin of profit on their tweeds. A factory like the Kaiapoi can afford to cut at one point or another and still have a profit that one cannot see. Ido know that the Auckland stuff is selling here. It comes into competition here, and at cheaper prices. 24. But the same thing applies to Auckland, does it not? —I do not see any Wellington work selling in Auckland. Probably the Wellington Woollen Company sell a little there. They have been sending some lines to be made up there. They must fill in time with slop work. I should like to say that the Auckland trade a little while ago was largely shirt-making. Trouser-makers receive a small advance on shirt-makers' wages, but it is a considerable reduction on tailoresses' wages, though after a year's experience these same hands can be trained to do a much better class of work. My experience goes to show that this has been so in every line. I see shirt-makers here beginning in a similar way ; I see evidence of a similar state of things gradually creeping in here. Shirt-makers get simple lines to make up at a cheaper price than we could make them for the warehouses. It is customary to work up these girls to do the highest class of work. That is all I have to say, sir. John Manneks Morean in attendance and examined. (No. 8.) 1. The Chairman.] What is your name ? —John Manners Morran. 2. You represent the Auckland Clothing Manufacturers' Association, do you not?— Yes, 3. You desire to give evidence on this Bill?— Yes.

13

I.—lo

i. Will you kindly confine your evidence to any clauses in the Bill to which you object—to any new matter contained in this Bill?— Well, gentlemen, I was hurriedly called away from Auckland. Since I have been in Wellington I have embodied my views in a written statement which I have here, and it will not take me many minutes to read it to the Committee, if you will allow me. The subject matter, I think, bears upon the question. I have, however, confined myself to answering the questions and disproving the statements made by witnesses before the Arbitration Court in Dunedin. 5. I do not know that that can be taken as evidence here ?—I contend that the evidence before the Judge in Dunedin requires to be disproved. 6. Not here. 7. Mr. Lewis.] Does it bear upon this colonial question ?—lf the Committee will listen while I read this statement, they will get from it a very good idea of what I wish to state, and will be able to form a much more concise opinion on the matter. 8. Mr. Arnold.) Yes,Jif all reference to the Arbitration Court is cut out.—lf you wish to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion you must have a false statement disproved. I contend that lamin a position to contradict some of the remarks that were made by some of the witnesses before the Arbitration Court, and show you their statements are utterly wrong and misleading. 9. Mr. Tanner.] I think you should leave out all reference to the Arbitration Court.—ln connection with the matter; I may say I read a newspaper report, and I found a great "many things that were not correct in it. Therefore I wish to give my views on the subject, and they are contained in this. The Judge of the Arbitration Court has been influenced by the evidence given. As far as I can see, the Judge has had one-sided evidence, and we wish to defend ourselves. We do not wish this amendment to be passed. 10. The Chairman.] I want you to show reason why. I understand your objection is to the power granted to the Court to make a colonial award ?—My contention is this : We have a different and a much more up-to date method of manufacture in Auckland. We do not wish to be compelled to manufacture under an antiquated system like they have in the South. 11. This amendment deals with all trades where goods are interchangeable. The clothing trade is only one trade among many in the broad principle contained here.—My evidence has to do with my particular clothing trade, and the clothing trade is, I contend the point upon which this amendment will move. I say certain charges are made against the Auckland people which should be disproved. 12. Mr. Morrison.] The whole charge seems to be that they are paid lower wages than in the South ?—I contend that we can make a garment up more quickly and with less work than they do in the South. The work, although it is put together more quickly, cannot be so good as garments made by a lot of hand-work; but if the southern people have antiquated methods of doing their work it is no reason why we should be compelled to adopt them. The statement referred to by witness was then read by him as follows : — As given in the evidence, it is proved by statistics that the earnings of the Auckland workers are equal, or almost so, to those of the southern workers. It has been said that the ground is being out under the southerners' feet. We contend that the time should shortly arrive when the Auckland trade shall cease to be monopolised by the southerners. The people of our district must be employed, otherwise the Government will feel the effects of it. It has also been stated that the difference in the rate between the North and South workers oomprises a trader's profit; but I venture to suggest that few would be satisfied with such a rate. Those who supply the goods from the factory to the wearer would require more than the oost of the making and trimming of the whole garment for profit. Statements of this kind can only be considered nonsense. Why is it necessary to make a universal log, when the girls earn as much in the North as in the South, but by a different method, and general satisfaction prevails from employer to employe ? My own hands could not make anything like the same money working by the antiquated southern method—in fact, they would require to be retaught, and under such conditions would never earn the wages they are getting now. It is also stated in the evidence " that all trade experience teaches that trade must eventually ran along the lines of least resistance." The lines of resistance, I venture to say, must not have been very strong in Queen Street, considering that about one-half of the clothing sold there is made in Ghristchurch and Dunedin— principally Ghristchurch. As for food and rent being cheaper in Auckland than elsewhere, I should decline to use that as an argument to further our cause. Mr. Hercus says he is prepared to prove that Auckland workers earn satisfactory wages under this log. Where, then, I ask, is the grievance ? As for sixty-six people dominating two thousand, they (the sixty-six), if the figures be correct, voice the whole of the Auckland workers, who ask not to dominate but to be allowed to work in their own way. Referring to girls being inadequately paid—cases, as in the South, where girls have worked for three or four years at the rate of 3s. 6d. per week—l am happy to say that I have never had any such case in my factory; but I can, on the other hand, give instances of girls who have become in a few months a fully-paid piece-worker, and earning £1 per week. If close inquiry was made, it might be found that some of the southerners produce garments at less cost than we of the North. For instance, one skilled coat-hand might have one dozen apprentices in different stages, and keep them on low wages for, say, two years. Possibly, after a few weeks, some of the smart ones could almost make a coat. The result of such a method is that the coats, &c, would be turned out for next to nothing. I heartily condemn and have never practised suoh a method. It has been stated that the Auckland work is inferior, both in trimming and workmanship, to that of the South ; but, as we cater for the aforesaid gumdiggers, &c, does it not go to prove that more of it can be done in a given time ? That is the whole matter. I think you will find that a great many of the arguments in connection with this question have been answered. Some of the people in the South learnt their business in the South; I came from London, and my colleague, Mr. King, also came from London and America, and we have thus gained ideas that have enabled us to turn out garments much quicker than they do in the South. For instance, in the South, when a garment is given to a girl to be made, she has to cut the sleeve-linings to fit the coat and the holes for the pockets, &c.; while the method we adopt is that all that sort of thing is done before the garment is given to the girl; the pocket mouths are cut, and we can do twenty coats at one time. Now, this is only one instance to show that our methods are labour-saving. I have machines that sew on buttons, tack the bottoms of trousers, &c. I contend that you cannot put us on the same footing as the southern people. We have no objection to their making their garments in the same way, but we certainly decline to go back to an antiquated method that should have ceased twenty years ago. The southern people

i.—io

14

themselves admit that they are twenty-six years behind the times. We do not contend that our work is better; I admit it may be even inferior, and the southern manufactures will work their way into the market on account of the superiority of the work. I certainly think it would be unjust if you compel us to pay the same prices as are paid in the South. 13. The Chairman.'] We have no power to compel payment. We think a fair wage should suffice without interfering with the method of working. I have already given you a little insight into our method of working, and, while I do not wish to give trade secrets away, I say I can prpduce workers who can do nearly twice as much work in some lines as the southern workers can do. 14. Mr. Lewis.] Your chief objection seems to be this : you do not want Auckland to be brought under the southern log, but you would not object to Wellington being brought under the Auckland log ? —No ; I think it should be so if they desire it. They do not make their clothing in the same way as we do. We put more machine-work into our clothing. 15. The Bill contemplates a colonial log; the Court will take evidence and determine what is the proper log, and so determine the award in the whole colony. You would not object to a colonial log so long as you had the framing of it; is that so ?—No; I would leave things as they are. It was brought out before the Conciliation Board that there was no dissension in Auckland. The union have got such a hold on the southern manufacturers that the latter have to do practically as the Union dictates. The union says they must work forty-five hours a week, whereas the Factory Act says forty-eight. 16. In your statement you said you have in Auckland girls working for 3s. 6d. per week; does the union agree that they shall work for that ?—lt is generally understood that they shall receive 3s. 6d. a week to start with. We have some rule in connection with the matter. I think it is 3s. 6d. per week they receive, but lam not quite sure on the point. I fancy, though, there was some amendment of the law whereby a girl was not permitted to work for less than 4s. 17. In regard to gumdiggers' clothing, do you think it should be possible for the Court to make special regulations affecting that class of work ? —I do not see why the log should not embrace that class of work; for instance, if a man by his own perseverance and observation invents a new system whereby, we will say, he can make two blades of grass grow where only one grew before, he should be entitled to adopt that system. I believe that last year our average wage paid was higher than the wage paid in Dunedin. Girls in my business can earn as much as £1 10s. a week. Of course, making garments by machinery they are soon out of your hands, and every part we can do by the machine is so done. 18. Mr. Morrison.] You have no objection to the Court fixing a minimum weekly wage all over the colony ?—I believe the Auckland weekly wage is about the same as the southern. 19. But what I want to know is, do you object to a colonial minimum wage being fixed for the whole of the colony ?—No. 20. You object to the Court fixing the piece-work rate?— Yes. 21. Mr. Arnold.] You stated that the evidence given in Dunedin recently was all one-sided— that it was all from a southern point of view ?—Yes. 22. It was one-sided because there was no one from Auckland to contradict the statements; now, do you not think that if the Auckland employers and employes had an opportunity of being present and giving evidence they could have thrown a different light upon it ?—Yes, I think so. The statement that I have read will disprove a good deal of the evidence that was given. 23. Supposing the case comes before the Court again, and that Auckland is represented by the employers and employes, do you not think that then you could get justice from the Court ? Yes, I think so; unless, of course, it happened that we were swamped. We are only one city against all the others. The union have implicit confidence in the Hon. Mr. Jennings. I may state that I have taken him all over our factory, and he knows a good deal of the ins and outs in regard to our method of working. He sees how we manufacture our stuffs. He knows that the southern methods are antiquated, and he knows that we have improved methods that we brought from London. The southern people did the whole of the work of Auckland up to the time I came here thirteen years ago. Now we are able to do our own, but although this is so we cannot get so much of it as we would like because the Kaiapoi and southern manufacturers are trying to bury us. We are satisfied to let things remain as they are, and do not wish to be compelled to work in accordance with the antiquated southern system. 24. Mr. Collins.] I understood you to say that the cheap class of clothing has been made exclusively for the gumdiggers and Maoris, did you not ?—I did not say exclusively. 25. Would not that same class of goods filter right through the colony, find its way into the southern markets, and be considerably used throughout the colony? —Yes, I think so, though not to any very great extent. The lowest class of tweeds in the colony is made in Onehunga. Our work is mostly with the common manufactures, and on this common material there is very little profit. On the work the southern people sell in Auckland they should get a much larger profit. Of course, the argument about cheap living we know all about, and we do not wish to go into that. 26. Mr. Tanner.] You stated that you were working under an agreement which has been filed in the Court for two years, and that that agreement is current now ; is that so ?—Yes. 27. Does it contain a clause that if any firm backs out of that agreement it shall become null and void ?—I believe there is some clause to that effect; I fancy it is that if the agreement is broken by both parties it becomes void. I suppose the remedy would be to take it to the Arbitration Court. 28. Then an agreement at present would be of very little use as to its binding character if it were broken by the parties ?—I am not exactly in a position to answer that question. There may be some technicality in it. 29. Have you a copy of the agreement with you ? —No; the original is filed in the Supreme Court. 30. Mr. Morrison.] How many are employed in this business in Auckland ?—I should say there are about three hundred in the clothing trade working ov woollen goods.

15

I.—lo

31. Three hundred employes ?—Yes. I do not suppose there are more than three hundred. Of course, this is a smaller number than in other parts of the colony, because they have had eighteen years start of us. 32. Mr. Bollard.] You contend, Mr. Morran, that you have a large trade among the gumdiggers and Maoris, comprising about thirty thousand people ?—Yes. I do not think there are any statistics to give the exact number, although it is supposed to be from ten thousand to fifteen thousand gum-diggers. I may say they wear the very commonest kind of clothing. 33. In consequence of supplying these people you make a different class of clothing, do you not ?—Yes. 34. Do I understand you to say that you are quite agreeable that you shall be compelled by the Arbitration Court to carry on your business in such a way that your employes shall have the same rate of pay proportionately as in other parts of the colony, so long as the Court does not interfere with your log or your method of working?— Yes, that is my contention. 35. The Chairman.] I suppose you are aware that under the existing piece-work log all allowance is made for machinery—that an agreement is fixed that a certain price is to be paid for handwork. That is the existing log, is it not ?—Yes ; but everything is not covered by it. 36. Is there anything to prohibit the Court extending that —bringing in the different items done by machines? Your system would not be interfered with by the Court. Of course, where you have machinery, the greater part of the work is done by the machinery?—l think there should be a piece-work rate of pay for machinists. Abeaham Levy in attendance and examined. (No. 9.) 1. The Chairman.] —What is your name, please ?—Abraham Levy. 2. You are a clothing manufacturer here ?—Yes. 3. You represent the Clothing Manufacturers' Association ?—Yes. 4. And you desire to give evidence on this Bill?— Yes, that is my desire. You will please confine your evidence strictly to the clauses you object to. We will take it that you do not object to any clause except which you speak of.—l do not know that I have much to say, except that I am of opinion that the same rate of wages that is at present paid here shall prevail, and, if possible, we should bring the Auckland people up to our standard. This, in my opinion, should be done. 5. Are you in favour of the Court having power to make a colonial award ?—Yes, I am in favour of that. 6. And that is the point you desire to bring out, is it not ?—Yes. 7. Mr. Arnold.] Are there reasons why Auckland should be permitted to work for lower rate than is worked in the South ? For instance, have they more up-to-date appliances in Auckland which enables employes to earn as much in a lesser time than employes work in the South ?—No; I think that supposition is only a myth. Ido not think there are many in Auckland earning as high a wage as is earned in the South. The Auckland work is not done on an equal footing as the same class of work done in the South. 8. Are the southern manufacturers very far behind Auckland as far as method is concerned, that is with regard to appliances and equipment?—No, not at all. The southern manufacturers are the manufacturers of New Zealand. The Auckland manufactured article is not in the same street as the article manufactured in the South. That is really a fact. If you want cheap and common stuff you will get it from Auckland. If you want real good stuff you will get it in Wellington or in the South. 9. With regard to machinery, have you as up-to-date machinery in the South as in Auckland ; have you machines to put on buttons, and so forth ?—Some of the southern manufacturers have as up-to-date machinery, of course, while others have not. Personally, Ido not approve so much of the use of machinery in regard to this work, except it be in the case of moleskin trousers, and cheap work of a similar nature. Some of the manufacturers are as up-to-date in every respect, I should say. Of course, the Auckland manufactures are mostly cheap suits, and so forth. If you want a first-class article you must get it from a southern house. 10. Have you had workers from Auckland in your employ; do you know the Auckland system and method of working?— Yes, I have seen the Auckland system, and know all about it; and I can assure you I would not have it at any price. I would not allow it. 11. Mr. Tanner.] You are aware that the Auckland manufacturers object to pay the same log rates as are paid in the South ?—Yes. 12. Do you think it would be possible to strike a log for the whole colony —for the Court to arrange that the cheap, slop-made articles manufactured in Auckland be included at a reasonable figure, and thus give the employes a chance of earning as good wages as are earned in the South ? —I can hardly say with regard to that. It is a problem. Ido not know at all. 13. Is the cheap class of work manufactured in Auckland provided for in the Wellington log? —No, it is not. They have a different working system in Auckland, and we do not take any notice of it. 14. Do you know any details of the system? —Yes. To give you an instance : we stay the edges of all our garments, and put pockets in the suits—-for instance, particularly with regard to Melville jackets—while in Auckland they do not do this. [Witness explained the technical process certain garments were submitted to.] 15. You think, then, if this cheap class of work was disseminated throughout the colony it would have the tendency to lower the general prices all through; that is, practically reduce the trade to a slop-trade, East End of London style '! — Yes. • 16. And for the credit of New Zealand manufactures you would like to suppress that class of work ?—Yes, I certainly should.

I.—lo.

16

17. You admit that the Auckland work is ill finished, is not done with the same exercise of skill as it is in the South, and that many little items that go to set off the work are left out, and, putting it plainly, the work is " cheap and nasty" ?—Yes, that is just it exactly. Good first-class work is done in the South. 18. And you say there is no really good work done in Auckland?—No, sir, there is not. 19. The Chairman.'] In cutting out coats, how much of the work is done before you give them out ?—The trimmings are put into them, and the pockets are chalk-marked. 20. The girls have to cut the pockets themselves ?—Yes. 21. Mr. Laurenson.] Do they cut out the linings ?—No, these are put in and the girl has to trim it and make one piece fit in with another. 22. Mr. Arnold.] In Auckland are the pockets cut in the same way as that ?—No; I believe the pockets are cut for the girls. 23. The Chairman.] Is there a saving of time? How long would it take a girl to cut the pockets?— Well, I suppose a minute. 24. For a whole garment?— Yes. 25. Mr. Laurenson.] Do you cut the pockets with a knife or scissors ? —Scissors. [Witness concluded his evidence by a short explanation of a technical nature regarding the cutting of garments.]

Tuesday, 17th July, 1900. Messrs. T. Ballingee, C. D. Mokpeth, and T. Wabdell, representing the Wellington Employers' Association, in attendance and examined. Thomas Ballingee examined. (No. 10.) 1. The Chairman.] What is your name, please? —Thomas Ballinger. 2. You represent the Wellington Employers' Association?— Yes; I am vice-president of the association. Our president is in England at the present time. 3. You desire to give evidence in connection with this Bill—lndustrial Conciliation and Arbitration ?—Yes. 4. I may say, Mr. Ballinger, we have laid down the following line in the taking of evidence — i.e., you will please confine your evidence to the new matter contained in this Bill, dealing only with the clauses to which you object, and making any suggestions you have in regard to them. The clauses which you do not mention we will take it you do not object to. Will you please proceed?—l should like to say first of all, sir, that all the new matter contained in this Bill is supposed to be marked by black lines, but we find to a certain extent that this is not correct. There is not only new matter in the Bill, but in several places old matter has been left out, and no notes made in the margin to draw attention to this fact. On page 2, clause 3, which says, " ' Employer' includes persons, firms, companies, and corporations," we desire the words " employing workers" inserted, " employing workmen " having been left out. 5. Your suggestion, then, is that these words be inserted ?—Yes ; as they were in the old Act. The words " employing workers " have been left out of the present Bill, and there is no note in the margin to show the alteration. Personally, I have very strong reasons for this. We were before the Conciliation Board two years ago, and members of certain firms had not been summoned. This was notable in the case of the Harbour Board and the City Council, both of whom employed plumbers. Now, I desired that these and several builders and others who were employing journeymen plumbers should be summoned before the Board, but the Board decided, at the suggestion of the union, that the journeymen should be summoned on the ground that they held a master plumber's license. The object of their taking out the master's license was that their employers were not plumbers. Some of these journeymen were actually members of the journeymen's union, and six of them signed the award. I may say that at that time I had not studied the Act, or I should have raised strong opposition. There is no reference to show that there has been anything deleted from the old Act. On page 3, clause 2 (d) : " The claim of members of industrial unions of workers to be employed in preference to non-members." I have one or two suggestions to make in regard to wages. I think wages should be on a sliding scale. It is not right to say that the men should all have the same wage. Some men must get more wages than others as a matter of course. 6. Mr. Hutcheson.] Where does this question come in? —In the same clause. In regard to this question of preference, we strongly protest against this clause on the ground that the bulk of the workers are not unionists. The evidence given before the Conciliation Board one day last week—l think it was Thursday—showed this : One member—Mr. H. Warner—representing the Amalgamated Carpenters and Joiners' Union, stated there were nine hundred carpenters in Wellington, and Mr. Bollard said there were five hundred. The secretary of that union (Mr. F. W. A. Scott) said there were only about a hundred members in the union. I propose, Mr. Chairman, that in regard to the clauses to which we take exception, and the amendments we propose should be made, Mr. Morpeth should read them, and we should deal with them seriatim. 7. The Chairman.] Have you a copy of the suggested amendments typewritten?— Yes. I 8. It will be better to hand them in afterwards, and I propose you should do so ?—Very well. Mr. Morpeth: The first matter I have to deal with is the preference clause—clause 2 (d), page 3. In the event of preference being granted to members of unions, we think a quid pro quo should be given by the unionist in return for the great advantage that the Act proposes to give them. One suggestion we have to make is, that members of the union should not be permitted to refuse work when it is offered to them, otherwise the union should be responsible. We would also suggest that the union should be responsible to the employers for the good behaviour of its individual members for damage through gross carelessness, wilful destruction of

17

I.—lo

property, loss through absence of the worker on account of drunkenness, petty theft, pillage of cargo, &c. Those were among the items which occurred to the Committee when considering the question of what obligation should be imposed upon the union in return for this great consideration of preference. There is nothing more that the Employers' Association have to suggest in regard to the preference clause. The next clause we have to deal with is clause sof the new Bill—" The registration of industrial unions." You will notice that in subclause (3) of main clause 5 there are enumerated a considerable number of rules running as specified from (a) to (k), which the Act stipulates shall be incorporated in the rules of any industrial union desiring registration, whether of employers or workers. My committee think it would be a good plan that these rules should be added to in the direction that the union, whether of employers or employes, should guarantee all its members to be bond fide tradesmen in the business or trade represented by that union, so that there shall not be a mixture of men of all classes in a union—that is, for example, that the members of the Bootmakers' Union shall all be bootmakers, and the members of the Grocers' Union shall all be grocers, and so on. 9. The Chairman.] We understand that the position taken up is that the union shall be open to any men who like to apply for membership. Is that so ?—We would like that stipulation qualified to the extent that the words " any men," which you have just quoted, shall be bond fide tradesmen of their particular union—that is, a plumber shall be ineligible as a member of the Grocers' Union, and a printer shall be ineligible as a member of a plumbers' union. 10. The Chairman.] You mean the union shall not be open to any but competent tradesmen of a particular trade? —Yes, so long as the said tradesmen are actually engaged in that line of life. 11. Mr. Lewis.] So as not to inflate the membership?— Yes; and also various other reasons that will suggest themselves to the Committee. I think it is a reasonable suggestion. Another suggested rule is that any worker proved to be dishonest should be expelled from the union to which he belongs. Assuming that a man has committed a theft, he should not be eligible as a member of the union, seeing that preference is to be granted, and an employer may thus be compelled to accept the services of this man whom he knows to be dishonest. 12. The Chairman.] Before we leave this particular point as regards unions being open to only bond fide tradesmen, if that clause which you propose should be put in, how do you propose to deal with unskilled labour ? —ln the case of casual and unskilled labour special provision would have to be made. 13. You would confine that clause which you suggest to skilled tradesmen alone ?—Yes. Unskilled labour would have to be ranked and regulated in a different manner from skilled trades. Mr. Ballinger : I have also a suggestion to make—" that all members and officers of unions be bond fide members of the trade they represent," should be added to Mr. Morpeth's amendment. Mr. Morpeth: Yes; I have it here in a separate manner in regard to officers—"That the officers of one industrial union shall be ineligible to hold office in any other union." If it be inserted, " officers and members only be bond fide tradesmen," that will cover it, I think. Begarding clause s—registrations—registration —" any society consisting of not less than five persons," &c, : We would suggest that " two " should be substituted for " five." For instance, take the bacon-curers. There is, in this line, one factory in Wellington City and another in the province, but not in the city. There are no others in Wellington Province; they would be debarred from registering as an industrial union under this clause. 14. The Chairman.] Have you anything more to say in regard to this clause, Mr. Morpeth ? — No, sir. Mr. Ballinger : I have a suggestion to make in connection with clause 11, subclause (2) —that the word " Court " should be substituted for " Board." 15. Mr. Morrison.] " Board " occurs three times; do you object to it in every case ? Mr. Morpeth : Yes; we think the appeal should be from the Eegistrar to the Court, and not from the Eegistrar to the Board. In regard, to subsection (2) of clause 12, the Association thoroughly approves of this, but they would like to have it made a little clearer. 16. Mr. Hutcheson.] You want the words "of workers" inserted?— Yes; "of workers"—• " an industrial union of workers " : the object being that a man must be clearly ranked on one side or another. Either workers or employers must be meant, and in our opinion the words "of workers" should be inserted; otherwise the clause is approved of by the association, but they would like it to read more strongly and more clearly—" that an industrial union of workers registered under the Act shall be debarred from carrying on, trading," &c. 17. Mr. Morrison.] Did you say " shall be debarred " ? —Yes ; "An industrial union of workers registered under this Act shall be debared from carrying on, trading, manufacturing, or mercantile operations, or any operations for pecuniary gain." 18. Would not the word "prohibited "be better than " debarred " ?—Yes, perhaps so. Under the Companies Act, or some other vehicle such as that, the resolution to so carry on must be made in the union if the workers desire to engage in business. The point is that whilst registered as workers they shall not occupy the position of masters. Clause 17 is the next one I propose to deal with: " Industrial unions to send half-yearly lists of members and officers to Eegistrar." If you turn over the page you will see that subsection (4) states " a penalty be imposed not exceeding £2 " ; and under clause 6, " Proceedings for the recovery of such penalty shall be taken in a summary way." I may say at present notice is given by courtesy to members of unions. If this clause is to be complied with, we would suggest that it should be inserted in the clause that it be part of the duty of the Eegistrar to give, say, two weeks' notice. Clause 21 is the next amendment —" Industrial associations." This reads, "Any council or any other body, however designated, representing not less than four industrial unions of either employers or workers, may be registered as an industrial association of employers or workers under this Act." The old Act says, " That any number of industrial unions may be registered as industrial associations of employers or workers." This is a point we think should be considered. In a district where there are a lesser number than four they would be debarred from forming an industrial association. It becomes rather important when only the

3—l. 10.

18

I.—lo

industrial associations have the power of nomination to the Court. We think it would be rather hard, in the event of there being no more than three registered employers' or workers' unions in a district, they should be debarred from forming an industrial association. Mr. Ballinger: Another suggestion we have to make is that the word " association " be altered to " councils." We think it is very conflicting as it stands now, as there are already in the colony several registered bodies bearing the name " Industrial Association," and registered under " The Industrial Societies Act, 1883." These bodies exist in Christchurch, Wellington, Dunedin, Timaru and Auckland. Mr. Morpeth: Another amendment we have to make is that the clause should limit the number of associations to one in each district. Supposing there were sixteen industrial unions formed in Wellington, we are of opinion that they should not be eligible to form four industrial associations, as under this clause it seems it would be possible for them to do. We would prefer that there should be one industrial association and one only in each district. I will now proceed with clause 32 —"The duties of clerk." We think twenty-one days' notice should be given. 19. The Chairman.'] Are you discussing subsection (2) of clause 32 ?—Yes. Our suggestion is that twenty-one days' notice should be given by the clerk in order to give time to prepare evidence. I think it is in the regulations now to give only three days' notice. Twenty-one days' notice would give both sides ample time to prepare evidence, more especially the side being proceeded against. Clause 36: We have a memo, against that in connection with the constitution of the Board, suggesting that it be constituted of two assessors on each side selected from the particular trade in dispute, and that the Chairman should be elected permanently, and be either a Magistrate or a lawyer. 20. Mr. Hutcheson.] Do I understand you to suggest that you prefer that the Board should not be permanent, with the exception of the Chairman, and that parties to each dispute should elect the assessors? —Yes. Clause 41—" Disqualifications of members," 1, 2, 3, and 4. In No. 4, which says, " is convicted of any offence punishable by imprisonment for six months or upwards " we would suggest that the words " for six months or upwards "be cut out. Ipso facto he should be ineligible. Continuing on clause 41, we suggest that the old clause dealing with those who are qualified to become members of the Court or Board—2B of the old Act—be re-inserted. I think 53 is the next clause I have to deal with. Mr. Ballinger : I think there is a doubtful point in connection with clause 51 that requires to be cleared up. Ido not think that industrial associations can be parties to a dispute, as they are mixed associations. For instance, Ido not think the Trades and Labour Council can be a party to a dispute. The Chairman : We will make a note of it, although it is not new matter. Mr. Ballinger : The words "industrial association" are new—see clause 42 section 2 subsection (a) of 1894 Act. Mr. Morpeth :In reference to clause 53—" Upon receipt of the Board's report or recommendation, the Clerk shall (without fee) file the same, and allow all the parties to have free access thereto for the purpose of considering the same and taking copies thereof"-—in the opinion of our Committee this is a reasonable provision. But they conceive that circumstances may arise in which it would be desirable to have a certified copy of the recommendation or report, and they suggest that the Clerk should be empowered on payment of a reasonable charge to supply certified copies of the recommendation or report to all the parties. In clause 56, line 12, after " executed by themselves " we would like " or their attorneys " added. 21. The Chairman.] You wish to have inserted, "or their attorneys."—Yes. In regard to clause 57—" Eeference to Court in dispute not settled by Board," —the Association would prefer that clause 46 of the old Act be re-inserted, and that the present method of moving the case on to the Court should obtain under the new Act as under the old. In coming to clause 66 — " imprisonment for six months or upwards," line 39, page 18, we make the same suggestion as before —that the words "for six months or upwards" be again struck out. Clause 76—"Evidence "; we make the suggestion that the evidence be taken in shorthand. Clauses 85 and 86— these are new clauses dealing with the power of the Court to extend the terms of the award. My Committee suggest that, if the Court deems it expedient an award should apply to the whole of the colony, there should be a uniform general award. In reference to subclause (1) of clause 86—" Power to amend the provisions of the award for the purpose of remedying any defect therein, or of giving fuller effect thereto" —we think that power to amend the provisions should be limited to a period of, say, three months, otherwise it would tend to irregularity in working. Subsection (3) of clause 87 —" that application may be made to the Court direct, without previous reference to the Board " —we think that in every case the privilege should be accorded to parties at dispute to take their case to the Court; and we think that twenty-one days' notice should apply as before. Subclause (2) of clause 96. —In regard to this, we do not see how an industrial association can bring forward a dispute, and we think there must be some mistake. Coming to the last clause, 113, we think that the whole clause should be struck out. The only logical course to pursue would be that it should apply to the largest employers— i.e., the Government. 22. Does that close your evidence, Mr. Morpeth?—lt does, Sir. 23. Mr. Arnold.] You say, Mr. Morpeth, that no member of a union should be allowed to refuse employment when offered him ? —Yes, except in some instances. Of course, if a man were sick it would be unjust to ask him, but so long as he is able to work he should not be allowed to take up the position of putting his employer at a disadvantage. 24. Do you not think there may be some reason, such as strained relationship between employers and certain men, for instance?— Then in that case, I think, the employers would hardly offer the men work. 25. I fail to see how you can compel an employe to accept employment if he does not care to, any more than you can compel an employer to accept the services of a worker. In one case you

19

L—lo

simply say that certain men —union men —shall have preference ; in this case, you say that men shall be compelled to accept employment, do you not?— Yes, if it is offered him. To the best of my recollection these are the circumstances which the Committee had in their mind at the time they were considering this suggestion; assuming preference were given to the wharf-labourers, and on Saturday afternoon, we will say, there was an urgent necessity to unload a vessel, there was a strong counter-attraction in the town —some demonstration or other ; the employer, being compelled to select men only from the union, is put at a great disadvantage if these members of the union have no force compelling them to accept the employment offered, preferring to go off to enjoy themselves. 26. With regard to a man misbehaving himself, not being permitted to join the union; supposing that man does, for instance, as some men might in the hour of temptation, commit a petty theft, and is imprisoned for two or three days. The Judge has already said that members of the union shall receive preference, and because this man has committed this theft he is to be debarred from joining the union, and thus from employment. Why so ?—The point that our association raises is, not that the man shall be debarred from joining the union, but that the union shall be responsible to the employer for that man's behaviour. If the employer suffers loss through having to employ a certain coterie of men, the union should be responsible for the evil practices of the men whilst in his employ. • 27. You think that if the man takes advantage of an employer the union should be responsible ?—Yes. It is simply by way of a quid pro quo. 28. There is another question with regard to all members and officers of a union being bond fide tradesmen. It seems very fair on the face of it, but might not this point arise : that, in a certain trade, if it were possible to have an unprincipled employer—l do not say that it is so in Wellington—certain officers might be discharged and the union might find it impossible to get any members of the trade to take their place, and this would necessitate outside men having to be obtained. Such cases are in existence at the present time in Wellington ; might it not work unfairly in that manner? —Under the Act itself it would involve an employer in so many cases of breach of award that it would prevent him discharging an employe because he was a unionist. 29. With regard to clause 21—" not less than four industrial unions." You say that it should not be four. How many should it be ?—Any number—two or upwards. Take Wellington : there are only two freezing companies in Wellington; each is a limited liability company, and is, of course, registered as such. Supposing they were not limited liability companies, the clause as it is at present here, limiting it to four, would debar them from forming an industrial union. Our other recommendation is that we should have only one industrial association. We think the clause should be limited, so that two shall be entitled to form a union, but that there should be only one industrial association. 30. Mr. Hutcheson.] In extension of Mr. Arnold's contention, where he seemed to be rather uncertain about the propriety of compelling men to accept employment when offered them, I was going to draw his attention to the fact that a cabman is obliged to take hire when it is offered him, or he has to take the onus on himself of refusing. What I want to ask the deputation is, Do they think it is advisable that their suggestion should be given effect to—that the union itself should be responsible for the defalcations, gross negligences, &c, of any individual member, in the face of the fact that the whole principle on which preference is based is that their institution is open to all and sundry. I think the two ideas are rather inconsistent. Ido not see that you can ask the union to guarantee anything if the Arbitration Court make it a condition of their award that a union shall be open to all, in order to give employers a wider field of selection. Mr. Wardell: It is a misdemeanour, I understand, for an employer to refuse employment to a member of a union. The Chairman : That is all, gentlemen. Thank you for your attendance.

Wednesday, 18th July, 1900. Messrs. Waedell, Macfaklane, and Campbell, representing the Master Grocers' Association, in attendance and examined. (No. 11.) 1. The Chairman.'] I understand you gentlemen represent the Master Grocers' Association ? —Yes, sir. 2. You desire to give evidence on this Bill—-Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration?— Mr. Wardell: Yes. 3. Will you please confine your evidence, and any suggestions you have to make, to the new matter contained in the Bill, or upon any alteration you see in it ? —I may say, sir, we have our suggestions here in a concise form, and I propose to deal with them seriatim, and then hand them into the Committee. Of course, as retailers, we take it that this Bill is supposed to apply to retailers. As a matter of fact, it is all new matter to us. The principal clause affecting us is clause 2, (d), page 3 : " The claim of industrial unions for preference of employment." We are of the opinion that if this is granted the union should be very particular in the class of men whom they admit to their ranks. We would suggest some additional rules that it should be necessary for each to adopt. The first one is, " Always providing no one shall be admitted a member of any union of workers unless able to produce a satisfactory discharge from any former employers." In explanation of that I may say that a retail business is very different from a manufacturing industry. It is not alone the skill of an employe that is a great point with employers when engaging a man, but there are innumerable other things that have to be taken into consideration. They may appear on the surface as being somewhat trivial, but I may say that in the working of a retail business they are by no means so. For one thing, a man must have what we call address—able to talk to ladies, if I may be allowed to explain it in that way. He must also be civil and obliging, because

I.—lo

20

in a retail business a man is not tied down to a bench where he works from 8 till 5, probably; without speaking to any one. He comes into contact with the public as well as his employers and fellow-employes every minute of the day. We would suggest that the union—although this may not be exactly worded so as to meet your views—should be careful in admitting to its ranks members who may be undesirable. 4. Mr. Tanner.] In regard to this, will you please mention the clause to which you refer? — Clause 5, subsection (2). Presuming we give preference, we say that the union rules should include these suggestions of ours before they are registered, and we suggest that these should be included in this paragraph. The next suggestion I have to make is that "The union shall guarantee all its members to be bond fide tradesmen." If we give preference to unionists it is only right that, say, in the case of grocers they should have some experience of the grocery trade. Speaking from experience, we have had men coming to us for employment who have been carpenters, or engaged in some other line, and they have come to us claiming employment on the ground that they are members of the G-rocers' Union; therefore it is our strong claim that we should have some guarantee that in this respect men coming to us for employment should know something of the trade. The next suggestion is, " Provided that any member be proved to be dishonest he be immediately expelled from the union to which he belongs." I was before the Committee yesterday on behalf of the employers, and this same question cropped up then. I would like to say that we do not wish a man to be debarred from becoming a member of a union for a reason of this kind, but that if after he becomes a member of a union he be proved to be dishonest we think there should be some means of dealing with him by the union and the employers. It is very often absolutely impossible to sheet home a case of dishonesty to a man. He may appropriate such trifling things that it may appear persecution to make a Court case of it. Sometimes it may happen that there is only a suspicion in the mind of an employer that a man may not be honest, and, although there may be very good grounds for that suspicion, yet it cannot be really made more concrete than that an employer thinks a certain employe to be dishonest. I think that if it were provided that in eases of dishonesty being found out and proved it would make men very careful in their actions. Therefore we consider that it should be the promise of the unions to expel men of this sort who have been proved to be dishonest and have been given every chance. A question of this sort is not alone a matter of cash, but a matter of taking goods from the store. Another proviso is "Provided that the chairman, secretary, or other officers of one industrial union be strictly debarred from holding office in any other union." This, I think, is necessary because the officers of a union have so much to do in framing the policy of the union—in bringing up and dealing with disputes. We certainly think that outsiders should not be allowed to deal with matters which, under the circumstances, they may know very little about. In the case of grocers, seeing the officers have so much to do in connection with a dispute, we think they should be grocers and understand the technicalities of the trade. In regard to clause 33, we would suggest that instead of a Board as at present constituted to deal with disputes, when a dispute does arise the Board shall be so constituted that there shall be three representatives on each side to represent the particular industry in dispute. I might say we are not particular as to the number on each side, but we think that in every case of a dispute the assessors should be chosen from the particular trade affected. We are indifferent as to the method of electing them, but .think this is a very desirable change. Another thing that we would suggest is that the Government appoint a Magistrate or lawyer as a permanent Chairman, for we think that it is absolutely necessary that a man of legal training should be Chairman of the Board. Those are all the suggestions we have down, Mr. Chairman, but Mr. Macfarlane wishes to say something in reference to the Chinese traders. The Chairman: I think, Mr. Wardell, that last suggestion of yours—referring to special Boards being set up to deal with technical cases —is met by clause 49, which gives you the power to have a special Board set up if you so desire it. Mr. Wardell: Personally, I did not understand what purpose these special Boards were for, whether they were to deal with industries or disputes. The Chairman : It is as to whether they can be better dealt with by experts or the ordinary Board. You can apply to a special Board, or go before the ordinary Board. Mr. Wardell: May I ask would it not be better as I have suggested ? I understand that in other parts when a dispute arises—we will say for the sake of argument—in the case of the grocers they have grocers to deal with it. The Chairman : That is a suggestion you have put forward; it has been already put forward, and we will deal with it later on. Mr. Macfarlane : I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that in our trade we are greatly affected by the large number of Chinese businesses in this town, and if this Act is passed, and we have no reason to think otherwise, there should be something done to regulate this trade. The Chinese open at 6in the morning and keep open till 12 at night. The employers in our trade who keep well-regulated stores have no chance in competing with them. Though the Chinese keep greengrocers' shops they sell groceries to a very large extent, and the grocery trade is really the only trade affected by them. The Chairman : This is outside the scope of this Bill. Mr. Laurenson : If they keep open to all hours it would be better to make a note of it for the Shop Hours Bill. 5. Mr. Tanner.] We can understand your objection with regard to workmen who may have been convicted of dishonesty, or have a questionable character, having preference of employment. You think there should be a stipulation in the law compelling unions to provide for cases of that kind? —Well, I will put it in this way: there should be no stipulation to prevent them from taking these men into the union, but that if a man afterwards proves to be dishonest the union should deal with him as well as the employer.

21

I.—lo

6. In order to prevent other employers being victimised by these men?— Yes; and- it will also be for the benefit of the men as well, for a man who is proved to be dishonest will be pilloried, as it were. 7. You want a kind of collective guarantee from the union as to the character and abilities of its members ?—Yes; and that they shall not be readmitted into the union again. 8. With regard to a man who came here, say, for the first time, you would not rake up his past against him, would you ?—As a matter of fact, we are not able to. A man should be in a position to produce his discharges from his former employers. 9. If he was not able to do so, would it prevent him from getting employment ?—Well, as a rule, they always do bring these discharges with them. 10. The Chairman.] Mr. Macfarlane and Mr. Campbell, do you indorse all that is said by Mr. Wardell ?—Yes, Mr. Chairman. Samuel Brown in attendance and examined. 1. The Chairman.] Mr. Brown, you represent the Wellington Industrial Association?— Yes, sir; lam representing four industrial associations. 2. You desire to give evidence on this Bill —Industrial, Conciliation, andjArbitration ?—Yes. 3. We will take your evidence—any suggestions you have to make in regard to the new matter contained in the Bill.-—-Very well, sir. 4. Mr. Arnold.] What four associations do you represent ?—The Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin associations. I might say that after carefully reading the Bill I think on the whole it is a very fair one, and proposes to remedy defects proved to be in existence ; and the suggestions such as I have to make, as far as I can see, go in the direction of endeavouring to make a little clearer what is really intended by the Bill. I have made a memorandnm of them on each page, and the first clause I wish to deal with is clause 2—the interpretation—which says " ' Employer' includes persons, firms, companies, and corporations." We desire the words " employing workers "to be inserted. It seems to me to require this in order to make it read clearly. Coming to page 3, the question of preference : I have explained to our association that this is simply putting in what the Court of Appeal decided, and. that it merely remains as before. Clause 5, Eegistration of industrial unions : I would suggest that that should be altered to, say, " two or more." In discussing it, it was mentioned that there were some buinesses in which there were not more than two, and the bacon-curers in Wellington were cited, there being only two. They would be debarred from registering as an industrial union although there may be forty or fifty men between them. I can instance a case in Auckland—the saddlers ; they could not register, as there were only four of them. This was in the case of the wholesale saddlers. Going on with this question of registration of industrial unions, it is suggested that it might be added, " All members whether employers or employes shall be bond fide tradesmen of their particular calling or trade." It has been pointed out to me throughout New Zealand that in many unions there are persons who do not belong to the trade that union represents, and these persons cause a great deal of trouble one way and another, and make themselves generally obnoxious. There is no difficulty whatever in dealing with bond fide tradesmen who are members. The next clause is No. 11, subsection (2), " Such society, if dissatisfied with the Eegistrar's refusal," &c. : we think that the word " Court " should be substituted for " Board." Clause 17, subsection (6), is the next one, " Proceedings for the recovery of penalty": it is suggested that the Eegistrar be required to give notice. Clause 21, " Industrial associations" : I am not quite clear upon this. It says, " not less than four industrial unions of either employers or workers may be registered as an industrial association." I think there are no such things in existence as industrial associations of employers under this Act; there are of workmen, in the shape of trades-unions. lam instructed to ask you if you value this name in any way, because the name "industrial association" confounds these with the former organizations in New Zealand, who are apart from this Act, and who have no vote. The members of the Auckland Industrial Association said they suffered very much because they could not get members to join the industrial association. It was suggested to change the name, but the Canterbury representative —the president of the industrial association there— protested very strongly ; he said, " We have had this name for twenty-one years, and we do not wish to change it now." Some two or three years ago we went into the question, and it was pointed out that the industrial association had a very wide scope indeed—different from any organization in existence. I should be glad if the Committee could see its way to recommend that the industrial associations in New Zealand be not confounded with what is intended here. The Chairman : I think it should be " industrial councils " ; we will make a note of it. Witness (continuing) : Clause 32, subsection (2), " Duties of clerk," " To convene the Board or Court for the purpose of dealing with any such dispute ": we think the word " Court " should be struck out, as the Clerk cannot convene the Court. The Judge does that, as he telegraphs from tim.e to time to the different bodies that he is going to sit, and, of course, it is impossible for the Clerk to do that. Clause 41, subsection (5), "Is absent during any period of thirty days from all meetings of the Board held during such period." 5. Mr. Leivis.] What does thirty days really mean? Does it mean thirty sitting days ?—I am rather puzzled about that. Thirty sitting days might mean going all over New Zealand. As a matter of fact, the Arbitration Court commenced sitting in Auckland, went to Westport, Dunedin, Christchureh, and Eangiora, and settled about thirty disputes, and was only sitting for the whole time about thirty days. Mr. Lewis : We will make that point clear, at all events. Witness (continuing): Clause 45, "Quorum of Board," which says, "The presence of the Chairman and of not less than one-half in number," &c. : I suggest the words be added, " one on each side," because it might happen that there were two on one side and none on the other. As a matter of fact, I think such a case occurred on the West Coast, and the Chairman unwisely went

I.—lo

22

on with it. In subsection (2) of clause 50 I suggest adding, " the members of such special Board shall be experts in the trade at dispute, and the Chairman shall be a lawyer." 6. Mr. Laurenson.] You wish to insert that the Chairman shall be a lawyer, and the members of the Board be experts in the trade in dispute ?—Yes, Sir. In many cases a great deal of dissatisfaction has been expressed in regard to this question, and this clause apparently is intended to meet the case. I may say there are some cases of a very highly technical nature, and this clause would enable the parties to have two persons on each side who were experts. It would certainly be a material saving of time. On one Board I had to deal with—and I may say it is the best in the colony (I am referring to the Dunedin Board) —the Chairman is a lawyer; and I would further say that everything done by this Board is done in a concise and proper manner. I think for the benefit of all parties concerned the Chairman should be a lawyer. Clause 53, " Upon receipt of the Board's recommendation " : I suggest that the clerk should supply a specified copy for a small fee. Awards have been made, and many people have not seen them. I know of such cases—one occurred in Dunedin. I think this is a step in the right direction, and would ultimately prevent a lot of disputes from arising. Clause 55, subsection (1): I suggest that in this clause, " shall be executed by all the parties," the word "attorneys" be added. Clause 57: I have here a suggestion to re-enact clause 46. We make the suggestion that either party might go direct to the Court. 7. Bight Hon. B. J. Seddon.] Do you mean to set aside the Conciliation Board altogether?— No, not at all. This is merely to apply to cases that have been before the Board, perhaps twice before, and allow them to go direct to the Court if they choose, without going over all the same ground again. In some cases going to the Board again would mean a matter of fourteen or fifteen days. I might cite the typographical dispute, which took a very long time. Mr. G. Fenwick complained about the length of time involved, and the result is that the whole thing, which took nearly three weeks before the.Board, will be finished in two days. With reference to the remark about doing away with the Conciliation Board, clause 49—in regard to special Boards of Conciliation —I think, is a wise provision and will meet anything that is required in the colony. I now come down to clause 73, subsection (2). I thing that the time—forty-eight hours' notice—is not enough, especially in cases where people have to attend from a considerable distance. 8. Mr. Laurenson.] What do you suggest ?—Three days or more ; that is, seventy-two hours. Clause 74, " Any party to the proceedings may appear personally or by agent ": I think that a hitch may occur here. I would suggest that in a breach of award solicitors may appear. Both the past and present Judges of the Arbitration Court said that they preferred them. In cases of original dispute before the Board solicitors are objected to, because the parties say they can explain their own case much better, and as a rule the workmen understand their own case best. However, it is different when the case comes before the Court, and solicitors are preferred. 9. What do you suggest?— That solicitors appear. Clause 79, "Decision of the Court": I do not know there is any necessity for this. Clause 84, " The award shall be signed by the President " : I would suggest that a certified copy be supplied by the clerk on payment of a small fee, for the same reason as I have given before. Subsection (3) of clause 85, " The award by force of this Act," &c. : I think, Sir, that an injustice might be done under this provision. I might cite cases that occurred in Otago in connection with mining where an injustice might have been done— the case of the Allandale, Kaitangata, and Green Island miners. The conditions in these cases were different. If in the case of the Allandale they had applied to the Kaitangata and Green Island, it would simply mean shutting up their mines. I think that an opportunity should be given to parties to say why they should not be in the award. This shows that a great injustice might be done unwittingly. This clause would probably ruin them. Clause 86, subsection (3), " Power to extend the award so as to join and bind as party thereto any specified industrial union," &c.: Auckland disagrees with it; but Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin agree. I think there has been a misconception as to the scope of it. Subsection (3) of clause 87, " The application may be made to the Court direct without previous reference to the Board " : I think the words " by either party " should be inserted in order to make it read. 10. Mr. Tanner.] It is specified in subsection (1) that the powers may be exercised on the application of any party. You would have these words repeated ?—Yes, I think so, in order to make it clearer. Clause 97, subsection (1) : " Each special meeting shall be duly constituted, convened," &c.: I think the majority should be fixed at three-fourths. You will not get three-fourths at a meeting; but I suggest a circular be sent out giving particulars as to the business, time, and place of the meeting. It would be easier for a member to write whether he agrees or not. For instance, in the case of the Seamen's Union, you cannot get a large meeting there, although they are a large body of men, numbering probably about 1,000. I think this suggestion is simple and effective. Clause 98, subsection (1), "At any stage of the proceedings the Board or the Court," &c. : I would suggest that in the case of the Court, at any rate, this should be done on the motion of the Judge, or Court itself. I may say it has been the custom of the Arbitration Court to discuss matters in the freest manner possible; the Court discusses everything in a very impartial manner. I think it would very materially influence the usefulness of the Court. I say this : that wherever the Court has sat—in Auckland, Christchurch, Dunedin, Eangiora, &c. —it has left the masters and men better friends than ever, and 1 should be sorry to see any measure put in that will tend to do anything else. 11. Bight Hon. B. J. Seddon.] Do you suggest a variation of the existing law on this point?— No, Sir. I simply make a suggestion that I wish to be given effect to. 12. Subsection (3) says: " The assessors shall be nominated," &c. ?—Yes. 13. Mr. Arnold.) That has been done by the Court, has it not ? —No, Sir. 14. Bight Hon. B. J. Seddon.] What you really object to is this : that the Assessor should not be brought in at all; is that so ?—I say, if the Court wants to call in Assessors let them do so by all means, but they do not wish to have strangers brought in to their deliberations.

I.—lo.

23

15. Your argument is that the Board may call in experts, but afterwards they do not form part of the Court?— Yes, so long as they do not form part of the Court. In subsection (3) of clause 98, " The Assessors shall be nominated," &c, I suggest "as the Court directs "be put in. Clause 113 : We think, as an industrial association, that this should apply to all the Government employes, notwithstanding that they have got Boards. The essential spirit of the Act is to improve the condition of the workers. 16. Mr. Laiirenson.] You could not include Police and Defence Departments in that, could you?—lt should apply to the Public Works Department, and the Railways, and so on. That is all I have to say, Sir. 17. Mr. Arnold.] You personally represent the employers, do you not, Mr. Brown ? —I do not claim to represent all the employers. You must not mix me up with the employers' associations. I represent the industrial associations. 18. In any case you represent those that are likely to come under this Act ?—Yes, Sir. 19. You say that members and officers of a union should be skilled tradesmen ?—Yes. 20. I want to point this out to you: In some cases secretaries of unions are continually discharged by their employers as soon as they take office: is that not so ? —Well, I can only say that it is news to me. 21. A secretary, I say, can be discharged for very many reasons ; he can be told there is no work; his successor can be discharged in three or four weeks, and when four or five of these secretaries are discharged in this way it is impossible to get another man in the union to take that office. In Wellington to-day there is one man who is secretary of about six unions. There is a movement in Christchurch to support one man wholly, so that he can be secretary of as many unions as possible. Might there not be a difficulty in this way between employers and men as regards all officers and members being bond fide tradesmen ?—There might be ; but we have been trying to make them good friends. 22. Do not you think that the same thing applies with regard to the small meetings that you spoke of ? If it is decided that a certain case shall be referred to the Board, members may be in thorough sympathy with the dispute, but employers get to know who they are and how they vote ? —My experience has been the reverse of yours. Generally I have found they are able to keep their counsel very well. 23. Mr. Lewis.] Would not the difficulty be got over by my suggestion, that the vote should be taken by ballot ?—Yes, it would. 24. Mr. Tanner.] A majority of three-fourths would not help the numerical attendance of the meetings at all, would it ? —No, Ido not say that; my suggestion is this : some might attend, and those who do not choose to attend could write back " Yes," or " No." 25. To be quite sure that the dispute is approved of by the mass of the men in the trade ?— Yes. 26. The Chairman.] You have had a considerable amount of experience on the Arbitration Court, and I should like to ask your opinion on this word ". worker " : do you think it would cover all classes—that all classes of workers would be brought under this Act ?—Yes, all classes. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying it, and strongly affirm it. I make statements on broad grounds that if the Act is good for one it should be good for all. Personally I think this is a good step, and I might say that this is our association's view also. J. Henry Mackie, in attendance and examined. (No. 13.) 1. The Chairman.] What is your name?— J. Henry Mackie; I represent the Auckland Provincial Industrial Association. 2. You wish to give evidence in connection with this Bill—lndustrial Conciliation and Arbitration ?—Yes. 3. Will you please confine your evidence to any new matter contained in the Bill ? —I may say, Sir, first of all, leading up to this question of " references to Board or Court to be approved by resolution of union," I should like to offer a suggestion in order that it may be ascertained approximately what are the views of the majority of members belonging to the union. I suggest that the number entitled to vote should be in some proportion to the number on the roll of the union. I think that would be the most effective means of dealing with what is now a very objectionable state of affairs. In certain unions representing trades that are in fairly satisfactory positions, it is left open to the minority of members of a union to bring a firm of employers before the Board or Court and cite them in dispute. The strong objection is this: that it brings persons before the Board or Court who have no dispute between themselves and their employes, and there is a good deal of evidence taken there that should not be made public. I suggest that some reasonable proportion should be determined on. lam not prepared to say what that proportion should be ;|it should, however, be decided, in order that manufacturers generally may properly ascertain the strength and feeling of parties in regard to any of the matters to go before the Court. We have already had difficulty in dealing with this question. Some manufacturers in a town, and representing large industries, have stood aloof from joining the Industrial Association because they fear it is simply an employers' association in another guise. Attention has been drawn to the fact that the expression in the new Bill, " Industrial Associations," is identical with the title of our institution, and 1 am pleased to observe that the Committee approve of the alteration of the term in the Bill. I wish to make that point clear in dealing with this matter. No doubt the functions of an industrial association are properly understood by the Committee. I should like to put it in evidence that we make a distinction between employers' associations and industrial associations. In regard to clauses 85 and 86, they are somewhat identical, and they might be consolidated, if I may take the liberty of suggesting it. With reference to subsection (3) of clause 85, and subsection (3) of clause 86, it seems to me that they go on similar lines to a certain extent. Unfortunately, there is a difference of opinion between the southern associa-

I—lo

24

tions (including Wellington) and the Auckland Industrial Association in regard to the operation of subsection (3) of clause 86. We have been told that it is not intended that an award should be made arbitrarily throughout the colony. I take it to mean that the Judge shall in all cases make an award apply arbitrarily throughout the colony. That is what we take exception to. The conditions prevailing in Auckland are very different indeed from those in other parts of the colony. There are different systems adopted in Auckland. We have far more natural advantages in Auckland than they have jn any of the other centres. It has been asserted that there would be no other objection to this clause if the articles that are being manufactured in Auckland ■were not in some cases interchangeable throughout the colony; and it is in consequence of the difference of opinion that exists between North and South that this objection has been created. As regards the other principles contained in clauses 85 and 86, we are in perfect unison with them. In regard to Auckland, I could name about four different reasons why exception is taken : they are, geographical position, climatic conditions, and economical conditions, which latter can be divided into domestic and industrial. Prom my knowledge of Auckland and other centres I have no hesitation in saying, with reference to wages, that a man in Auckland earning, say, £3 a week, can save money to a greater extent than a man on the same footing, say, in Wellington, particularly. By way of illustration, take the question of house-rent. In Auckland he can obtain a house with sufficient accommodation for himself and his family at a much lower rental than one could be obtained in Wellington. He can get a five- or six-roomed house in Auckland for about 10s. a week, and that house would be in a respectable locality, and quite comfortable and habitable. This is an altogether different state of things to that which prevails in Wellington, as I can state from experience. As to the difference in the method of production, the system under which some industries in Auckland are conducted is altogether different from the southern system, and I maintain that this has a bearing which is pertinent to the question at issue. If there is no distinction to be made between the natural conditions of one part of the colony and that of another, then, I say, we are penalising the progress of the colony —say, for instance, in the case of an award being made in Dunedin and being applied also to Auckland. If you attempt to level down everything instead of levelling-up, it would have a far more injurious effect upon the colony, as it would simply mean that, instead of protecting local industries, we would be opening up avenues for the imported article, and this, I think, is undesirable. It is not a question in our case simply between the employer and the employe; it is the broader question of the promotion of the industries of the colony. It appeared in evidence, in the case of the Tailoresses' dispute recently in Dunedin, that the manufacturers stated that owing to the conditions under which they worked, the imported article was coming into the colony in larger proportions than it should do. It was also admitted in evidence that Dunedin was some twenty-six years behind Auckland in the methods adopted in certain industries. If it is a question of adjustment of workers' earnings, then, in Auckland, I think, the employers are prepared to pay a weekly wage on an equivalent ratio to what is paid in the South. In some, at least, of the factories in Dunedin they work only forty-four hours per week; while in Auckland, where they are also governed by the Factories Act, they work forty-eight hours per week, and the employes are quite content. The forty-four worked in Dunedin is simply an adjustment between employers and employes, and is by mutual consent. In one industry in Auckland there are some four hundred or five hundred operatives, and the number belonging to the union is only from sixty to seventy. This goes to show that they are perfectly satisfied with the conditions operating there. They have never been before the Conciliation Board or the Arbitration Court. Everything has worked amicably; and for the several reasons enumerated the Auckland Association requests me to contest the insertion of this clause as it stands. It has been stated in regard to this clause that it would bear arbitrarily. My suggestion is that the clause should be amended so that, in the event of a demand being made for the application of the spirit of the clause throughout the colony, opportunity should be given to the parties interested, on ample notice, to give evidence before the Arbitration Court in some central part of the colony—say, in Wellington. Of course, it might be in some cases more convenient to hold the case at Christchurch, if the matter in dispute referred only to the South Island. 4. Mr. Lewis.] You would object to Auckland being compelled to pay under the Wellington log, we will say, in your particular trade ?—ln the first place, I should desire to know that the log meant practically the same thing. In Dunedin, in the clothing trade, the log is not on all-fours with the log in Auckland. 5. Would you have any objection to a colonial award being made by the Court?—lf the basis of production were the same, then I should say by all means let us have a uniform award. I assert that it is only right that discretion should be used by the authorities in dealing with these various questions. 6. Mr. Arnold.] Supposing that the Auckland employers and employes were present before the Court to give evidence; there is no reason why the Court should not make an award that is fair to all parties concerned, is there?—No; if it were based on the cost of production, and so long as all the points in question were taken into consideration, I should think there would be no difficulty in making such an award. 7. I have another question which I wish to ask you ; it applies to Auckland. Is it not a fact that in Auckland members are frightened to have it known that they belong to unions?—l cannot say that it is so now, although I recognise that it has been so in the past, but there is a different feeling now. The relations between both sides are more satisfactory. Perhaps up to, say, twelve months ago, such a state of things did exist. There was a certain bitter feeling, but that feeling is very much modified now. 8. You think that the feeling that existed twelve months ago does not exist now ?—Yes ; at all events, not to the same extent.

25

I.—lo

Wμ. Jones and D. McLaren in attendance and examined. (No. 14.) 1. The Chairman.] You represent one of the Trades and Labour Councils ? — Mr. Jones : Yes. 2. We have received a communication from you containing certain suggestions with regard to this amendment; I presume you desire to give evidence in support of those amendments ?—Yes. Of course we can only follow up the suggestions that have been made by the Council. I might say, for the benefit of members of this Committee, that the Council went exhaustively into the Bill and took the whole of the matter seriatim. They are very pleased with a large portion of it, and think there are reforms intended in the Bill that are in the right direction. There are some portions of the Bill that the Council has already drawn the Committee's attention to, and I think it states specifically what they are. In the first place, clause 5, subsection (3) (h) —" No member shall discontinue his membership without giving at least three months' previous notice to the secretary of intention so to do, nor until such member has paid all fees or other dues," &c. ; the Council would like to have inserted there " fines or levies." There is no provision for recovering fines or levies. When it was submitted to a legal authority for an interpretation the legal authority was of opinion that the word " dues " would not cover it. 3. Mr. Collins.] The wording is all right ; the word " other" would be suggestive ; it does not put dues in the same category as fees, does it ?—Well, the reason for this is that a number of small unions might find it necessary to levy the members in certain cases, say, of expenses in connection with proceedings before the Arbitration Court. The society in the ordinary state of its funds would not be in a position to liquidate the liability; consequently it would be necessary to strike a levy. Of course there must be provision made, and there may be people who decline to pay these levies unless it was shown in the rules that there was power to enforce them. Page 5, clause 8, subsection (2)—" For the purposes of this Act every branch of a trade union," &c.; that is all right, but on taking a jump over to clause 14, on page 7, there would be likely, looking at it from our point of view, to be trouble. 4. Mr. Hutcheson.] A conflict between the two clauses—subsection (2) of clause 8 and subsection (1) of clause 14 ?—Yes. Clause 14, subsection (1) —" In addition to its registered office an industrial union may also have a branch office," &c.; looking down the interpretation clause in the Bill there is nothing whatever that defines a branch office, and there is no interpretation of the powers of a branch office ; and the powers of a branch office may in this way be misconstrued, more especially as subsection (2) of clause 8 says, " Every branch of a trade union shall be considered a distinct union and may be separately registered as an industrial union under this Act." There may be conflict there, and the Council deem it advisable to draw the Committee's attention to it, so that there would be no conflict, and they have suggested that it read, " In addition to its registered office, an industrial union may also have a branch office in any locality in its own industrial district." The Council suggests this in order to cover any difficulty that might otherwise arise. 5. Mr. Laurenson.] May you not have a branch office in any locality in which there is no industrial union of a kindred nature ?—Yes. Of course, this is all the more serious from the Council's point, of view, inasmuch as the Bill proposes—and rightly, too, in the opinion of the Council— in section 11, provision "to prevent multiplicity of unions." It seems there is a conflict again here. 6. Mr. Collins.] Ido not think there is any conflict here so far as this is concerned. Clause 14 only enables a branch to be opened in another industrial district, does it not ?—Yes, but it says in clause 11, "in order to prevent the needless multiplication of industrial unions," &c. Supposing, for instance, a union in any part of the colony, under clause 14 as it stands at present, has a registered office in another part of the colony, it may have a branch office in a locality where there is already another industrial union. 7. The Chairman.] Is there any reason why they should not have a branch office ?—lt seems to conflict in this way, that there is a clause to prevent multiplication of unions on the one hand, and on the other hand there is a clause enabling them to multiply these unions. 8. No, only branch offices, is it not ? —The tendency in these days is to have an award, if it can be obtained, that will be uniform throughout the colony; consequently, say members in any part of the colony, belonging to the anion in their own district, should, by the variation of trade, travel to another part of the colony. In almost all trades of the present day members coming from, say, Auckland to Wellington, would pay their dues into the trade union where they propose to work. The object of a branch office would simply be to collect the contributions of these members coming from other districts. This is where a conflict might arise. The Council only desires that there shall be no conflict. The Legislature is endeavouring to prevent this needless multiplication of unions, and seeing that the tendency is to have a uniform working throughout the colony it is more desirable that members coming from another district should pay their dues into the unions in the district where they expect to get work. A man should get his clearance card from the union he is leaving and present it to the union where he is going to work. 9. Supposing there is no branch office, what is he going to do ? There should be a branch office, should there not, so that he can join it ?—Yes ; that would meet the objections of the Council, because there would be no conflict there. 10. But, I say, if there is no branch office of his own union ?—'What the Council desires is this : that, in any district where there is a branch of the union representing the union in this particular district, there should not be another union or branch office representing the same society. In clause 15 the words "all fees or dues" occur again. Clause 16 —"An industrial union may purchase or take on lease in the name of the union any house or building on any land not' exceeding one acre" ; the Council suggests that a union should not be restricted to one acre, because they might lease or purchase any parcel of land that might be more than an acre. They think that the words " not more than one acre " should be struck out. Under this section

4—l. 10.

I.—lo

26

they could not invest funds, say, in any land exceeding one acre, and it is quite possible that some wealthy unions may have investments by way of mortgage on more than one acre. Clause 21, " Industrial associations" : The Council is of opinion that the word " four " should be struck out, and that the clause should stand as it is in the present Act. 11. You mean " two or more " ?—Yes, I think that is so; otherwise it would be a great hardship on many unions. The wharf-labourers in Greymouth and the wharf-labourers in Westport, I have been informed by the secretaries and presidents, are seriously considering the question of federating. They are practically in one district, and there is a difference in the rates paid at the present time. They want to federate, and have a uniform award. 12. Would it not meet the view if an industrial union had the same power to vote for the Court as they have for the Board?— That would be better, I think. Then, coming to clause 86, subsection (3), "Power to extend the award," the Council, while admitting it is absolutely necessary that there should be uniformity of conditions of labour and rates of pay throughout the colony, are also of opinion that this power to extend the award ought not to be allowed where there is already an award existing in an industrial district. 13. Mr. Collins.] Not if the awards are conflicting?— Well, it would cause trouble and dissension. I understand, as far as our correspondence goes, that for some years—in Auckland particularly—there has been a Tailoresses' Union there, but, strange to say, no inducement whatever can prevail upon the Tailoresses' Union in Auckland to cite cases, or to go before the Conciliation Board or Arbitration Court, in order to bring up the standard of wages to what it is in other parts of the colony—in the South. 14. Mr. Arnold.] I do not think that is so, is it ?—Well, probably we have been misled, but that is what we understood. And, seeing that they cannot be prevailed upon, the unions found it was detrimental to their own interests. They seek to extend the award into districts where there is no award already in existence. Where there is already an industrial award in existence the Council is of the opinion that there will be conflict. 15. Mr. Lewis.] When a certain award expired, what would happen then—say, a different award from the rest of the colony ? —They should endeavour to come up with the other parts of the colony. 16. But if that is to be done in eighteen months from now, why not do it at once ? —lf a union desired the power of extension it should be given. 17. The Chairman.] Suppose that the bulk of the colony were bound by an award, and one district were left out ; say some ten or eleven formed a union and entered into an agreement for three years, would you prohibit that ?—No, certainly not, where there is an industrial agreement. I do not look upon an industrial agreement as an arbitrary award. 18. Has it not the same force ?■ —It is far better this way, that an award of the Court should be obtained. In our opinion an award of the Court is infinitely superior to an industrial agreement between the parties. Unless the agreement is properly looked into the worker goes to the wall. It. is infinitely better if an award of the Court be obtained in preference to an industrial agreement. If there were an industrial award in a district, I say extend the award if it is about to expire. 19. Mr. Tanner.] Do you think that subclause (3), to which you refer, provides clearly enough for uniformity of awards throughout the colony? Is there any doubt in the minds of your Council on the matter? —There is a doubt in this way, that it does not state specifically how the award will apply. There is a difference of opinion about it, and the Council think it is somewhat ambiguous. 20. Suppose it read " in the colony," would that be clearer ? —Yes, provided that it shall not extend where an award already exists—that no existing award be interfered with. In the last clause, No. 113, the Council is emphatically of opinion that the clause be struck out. The Council is of opinion that this Act should be made applicable to the Government employes, and they consider it a great hardship that where there are so many casual hands on public works, railways, &c, the provisions and conditions of award shall not be made applicable to these people. Therefore they say that the provisions of the Bill be made to apply to the Government. 21. Mr. Hzitcheson.] You do not mean to include Police and Defence Departments?—No, industrial departments. Mr. McLaren.] Ido not know whether lam appearing here under false pretences or not. I may state briefly that lam not deputed to represent the Trades Council. Being a new member of the Trades Council, and desiring to emphasize the necessity for certain alterations in the Act, I asked the Council at the last meeting to place me on the list to give evidence here, which they did. I was not present when the Council went through the Act. Whatever evidence I have to give is as secretary of the Wharf Labourers' Union. I would like to emphasize one clause—the interpretation clause. With respect to the interpretation of the word " industry," lam asked by my union to say that we urge upon the Committee to have the Bill passed with that clause as it reads now. It appears to us somewhat of an absurdity that we should go to the expense of £60 or £70 and then have the case thrown out. 22. Mr. Lewis.] Before going any further, I should like to ask Mr. Jones a question. Are you willing to have the Bill altered in this way: Where there is no union at present and the employers are powerless—take the bricklayers and stonemasons in Christchurch; there being no union, the employers cannot go before the Board—should it not be competent for the employers to go to the Board and ask them to fix the rate of wages, and if the men do not like to form a union it should go by default ? If men will not band together the employers cannot get at them, and it seems to me that so long as men are satisfied they will not band. Should there not be a provision that the employers may take the case to the Court where men will not band together into a union ?— I think a provision of that sort would do no harm ; it would show the men if they did not set up and defend themselves they would go to the wall. Giving an individual opinion, I should certainly say, by all means, as it would then force men to protect themselves,

27

I.—lo

23. Mr. Arnold.} There is a question that you do not deal with in your evidence. You know that now when there is a dispute a solicitor cannot appear unless by consent of both parties, either before the Court or the Board ; do you think they should be permitted in cases of breach of award ?— I think discretionary power ought to be allowed to solicitors to appear on either side in cases of breach of award. Generally, I should say that solicitors ought not to be allowed to appear in any proceeding whatsoever except by the consent of both parties. It is not advisable, in my opinion, because they run the proceedings out and lengthen them in order to get fees. 24. Mr. Hutcheson.] What is your opinion, Mr. Jones, on, say, a proposal that an awa.rd should apply to the whole trade in that district or in the colony, as the Act decides, notwithstanding the fact that there is no union in existence— say, in a district where men do not deem it desirable to form a union and cite their employers before the Board or Court; should an award regulate the wages of men in a certain shop, notwithstanding that there are no union men in the shop, as they have not formed a union ? Do you think it should apply arbitrarily ?—Yes, to the same district, or even throughout the colony. I think it opens up a big question. 25. Mr. Tanner.] With regard to subsection (h), clause 3, " No member shall discontinue membership without giving at least three months' previous written notice " : Now how can a man give three months' written notice if, say, on Monday he gets the sack and immediately gets another job ? Under the wording of this clause might it not be held that a man is liable to pay twice over for three months ?—We do not look at it in that way. I take it that the rules would have to provide that a clearance card be granted at once. 26. Mr. Collins.] Clause 54, with reference to Conciliation Boards, "If all parties are willing to accept the Board's recommendation" : You think it should be necessary that all the parties should agree, and that the decision of a majority should not be taken ?—Yes, it is quite right that they should all agree : for instance, say there were fifteen parties to a dispute on one side and three out of that number absolutely refused to accept the Board's recommendation, it is quite an easy matter for the unions concerned to enter into an industrial agreement and compel the others to go before the Court.

Tuesday, 24th July, 1900. D. McLaeen, in attendance ; examination resumed. (No. 15.) 1. The Chairman.] You were about to give us some evidence on the last day of our adjournment in connection with this Bill—lndustrial Conciliation and Arbitration; I would ask you to confine your evidence to such clauses of the Bill, containing new matter, which you object to. We have taken a lot of evidence all round on this matter, and we intend to close the evidence to-day. If you have any suggestions to make in connection with the Bill you can do so afterwards — i.e., after you have stated your objections. Clause 34, subsection (2): "The other members shall in manner hereinafter provided," &c, taken in conjunction with clauses 8 and 11, seems to give branch offices the same power as a distinct industrial union. We think that would be a decided danger. It would lead really to the abrogation of clause 11, which seeks to prevent the multiplication of unions in the same industry. We think that under clause 34, subsection (2), branch offices would have the same power as a distinct industrial union. 2. You object to that?— Yes, sir. There is only another clause that I have to deal with, and that is clause 113. 3. The exemption of Government from the operation of the Act?— Yes, sir. I might say in connection with this matter that I have had letters from the Wharf Labourers' Unions in Greymouth, Westport, and Lyttelton, and these unions think it is a decided hardship that they should be placed in this position : that if they want to get a fair understanding with their employers they cannot, as casual workers, under this provision bring a case before the Conciliation Board or Arbitration Court against the Government. Now, at the present time, the Greymouth wharf labourers are working under an agreement with the shipping companies by which the shipping companies pay Is. 6d. an hour for handling cargo; at the same time the men are doing the same work for the Eailway Department, and they are only receiving Is. 3d. an hour. They have approached the Government with respect to this anomaly, but at the same time it appears to us that the only way out of the difficulty is to bring the Government under the operation of this Act, and allow the unions to deal with the Government as they do with the private employers. It seems to us that in this case of the Greymouth Wharf Labourers' Union to be somewhat of an absurdity. No doubt the employers will not pay more than a fair rate of wages, but that is all the men ask for from the Eailway Department. The men are placed in this position : that to get fair and proper consideration they are forced into the position that they must strike or do something outrageous. 4. Captain Russell.] What clause are you referring to ? —Clause 113. 5. The Chairman.] What about the Police and Defence Departments—would you suggest that the whole clause be struck out ? —We suggest that it be amended in the way of bringing the Government under the operation of the Act—as an industrial body. This, of course, would exclude the Police and Defence Forces. 6. Is there any other new matter in the Bill to which you object, or is that all ? —I should like to make a suggestion with respect to section 97, or, really, sections 96 and 97. Ido not know if I am in order in making this suggestion. It is with regard to " references to Board or Court to be approved of by resolution of union." Provision>,.is made for the fulfilment of the duties of the officers of a union, and visitors to the colony have pointed out that under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act the whole burden is really being thown more and more on the officers of the unions, and that individual members of unions are likely to shirk their responsibility in the matter. There is a provision in clause 97 for the proper calling of a meeting to provide for the reference of

L—lo

28

a dispute to the Conciliation Board. The suggestion I have to make is that there should be some provision for fining members who will not attend these meetings ; that the responsibility should to a certain extent be cast on the individual members of the union. 7. That is a matter you could have embodied in your union rules, could you not?— Yes; I suppose so. 8. A suggestion has been made that the vote should be taken by ballot, and not by a majority of the members present at the meeting of the union. Would you favour that ? —The only difficulty would be that it would involve a very large amount of work in order to take a ballot on each clause. 9. But the ballot would be taken on the general question to refer the case to the Board ; the question would be submitted to the meeting, and then the ballot taken.—l should agree with it if a ballot was taken on the general question. 10. Is that all the evidence you desire to give ?—Yes. 11. Mr. Arnold.'] With regard to the Government employes getting fair and proper consideration, you stated, Mr. McLaren, that the only thing they could do was to have a strike, or something of that kind, did you not ?—Yes. 12. I suppose that under the present Act they could strike?—l do not know of anything to prevent them. 13. With regard to other trades—l mean under the present Arbitration and Conciliation Act, after an award has been filed —is there anything to prevent them from striking ?—I see nothing to prevent any union from striking. 14. Is there not a clause in the present Act which distinctly says that there shall be no strike or lock-out when an industrial dispute has been filed ? —Yes, I believe so, when an industrial dispute has been filed. 15. Do you think that a clause of that kind is wise—that there should be something to prevent strikes and locks-out ?—Yes, I think it is a wise thing. 16. Old clause 29 is omitted in the present Act; do you think that it should be re-inserted ? —Yes; I certainly think it should be. I think that one of the principal objects of this Act is to prevent strikes, and therefore I think that the clause should be re-inserted, that no strikes should take place. 17. Mr. Hutcheson.] I would like to draw your attention to subclause (4) of clause 104, which says : "If any industrial dispute arises between the Minister and the society it may be referred to the Court for settlement if the Minister so agrees." Has your union considered that subclause in the section ?—No; my union has not considered it to any extent. 18. Do I understand you to say that generally you want the whole of the Government Departments brought under the operation of the Act ? —Yes. 19. Has your union any representations to make, any suggestions to offer, concerning the representation of the Conciliation Board ? —No; my union has no representations to make. Speaking as a member of the Trades Council, that matter has been discussed. A considerable number of the members of the Trades Council think that an alteration should be made in the direction of appointing assessors to sit with the Board during the whole course of the proceedings. 20. The Chairman.} Is that included in the recommendations of the Trades Councils ? —Yes. One of the suggestions that came up was that the Board should consist of three prominent members and the Chairman, and that the parties to the dispute should each appoint one assessor. 21. Mr. Tanner.] Do you gather from reading sections 34, 8, and 11, that the tendency of the Act will be to create too many trade-unions ? —Yes. 22. To multiply the unions ? —Yes. 23. To raise branches of unions to the dignity of unions when they are only branches ?—Yes; we would gather that the effect would be to give branches of unions the same status as an industrial union, and thereby cause considerable friction and confusion. 24. You think it would tend to a great deal of division in . the Councils of the unions themselves? —Yes, and there is another danger —it would be a continual harassment to the employers if there were two or more unions representing the same industry in the same particular locality. 25. You think that the two other clauses would tend to nullify clause 11 ?—Yes, to a certain extent. 26. Would it not also largely increase the expense of managing unions ? —-Yes, it would be an increased expense in managing unions ; but it is not the matter of the expense that we consider— it is the matter of creating friction among the unions and also the harassment of the employers. 27. You think it would lead to unnecessary complications?— Yes, undoubtedly. 28. The Chairman.] On the question of a Board of experts—do you think that if the present Conciliation Boards were " wiped" out, and you had men who had practically no interest in the dispute at all to deal with the matter without any personal feeling, do you not think you would be more likely to come to conciliation than if you had two men deeply interested in the trade to fight the matter out ? My experience has been that when there is an expert on each side, each one will fight for his own side ?—My personal opinion of the matter is that it would be a good thing to have a mixed Board ; that there should be two members of the Board appointed for, say, a period of three years, and that the parties to the dispute should each appoint one member, and thus get the advantage of expert knowledge. 29. Would you allow them to go in Committee with the Board and exercise a vote?— Yes. 30. Mr. Ell.] Do not you think that the expert knowledge could be gathered from the evidence ?—No, Ido not think so. When the Wharf Labourers' Union was before the Board we spent the best part of a day explaining certain meanings to members of the Board. If there had been one or more men on the Board who understood the various technicalities we would not have had to spend more than half an hour in this way.

I.—lo

29

31. The Chairman.] Would it not be much better if the powers of the Court were amended so as to give the Court power to call in experts without placing them on the Board with full powers? Would not the whole thing be got over in this way ?—I do not know; I consider I should be very sorry to see the Boards struck out or " wiped " out. I wish to see the Boards strengthened in every way, because I think their powers should be utilised in preventing further friction between the two sides. It seems to me that to have two experts sitting with the other members of the Board would facilitate the proceedings greatly. 32. Captain Bussell.} Do you wish to repeal that part of clause 34 which says that the Board shall consist of not less than five members, and say that the Board shall consist of the Chairman and two assessors only —do I understand aright that you mean that ?—No, my contention is that the Board shall consist of five, two of the members being assessors. There is just one more suggestion I wish to make in regard to section 5, where it says that trustees may, if thought fit, be appointed. I think that in the case of trades unions it should be specifically set down that trustees shall be appointed. 33. Mr. Morrison.] You think it should be mandatory instead of permissive ?—Yes. 34. Mr. Tanner.] Will you tell us what you understand by " officer of a union " ?—President, vice-president, secretary, and I suppose trustees. 35. Do you include trustees as officers ?—Well, perhaps not; still I think it would be wise to make it mandatory that trustees be appointed. In some cases the funds of these registered unions have been carelessly handled. With respect to our union, prior to our reconstruction, there was provision in our rules that the treasurer and one member of the committee could draw any money out of the bank. When I took office as secretary I said that state of affairs would have to be altered, seeing that the funds were not properly guarded. I think in registered bodies it should be mandatory that trustees should be appointed. That is all I have to say, sir. T. W. Young and J. Beuton in attendance and examined. (No. 16.) 1. The Chairman.] What are your names ?—Thomas William Young and James Bruton. 2. Whom do you represent ?— Mr. Young : The Federated Seamen's Union of New Zealand. 3. Do you both represent the same body ?— Mr. Bruton : No ; I am representing the Wellington Wharf Labourers' Union. I might say that Mr. Young is also representing the Wharf Labourers' Union. Mr. Young.- I should explain, sir, that I am here on only one clause so far as the wharf labourers are concerned, and that is clause 113 of the Bill. 4. The Chairman.] You desire to give evidence in connection with this Bill—lndustrial Conciliation and Arbitration ? — Mr. Young : Yes. 5. We will take it from the wharf labourers' point of view first, so as to finish their evidence; I understand you object to clause 113 ? — Mr. Young : Yes, sir. 6. Very well, then, Mr. Young, we will take your evidence now. Will you confine it to the new matter contained in any of the clauses to which you object, and we will afterwards receive any suggestions you wish to make ?— Mr. Young : Very well, sir. There is one matter here in clause 5, subsection (3), paragraph (h); the meaning is not very clear in connection with these words, " except pursuant to a clearance-card duly issued in accordance with the rules," &c; I think this is meant to apply to a transfer. Suppose we have unions of the same industry in the colony, and one member goes from Auckland to Lyttelton and transfers his membership in accordance with the rules, similar to the rules of the Seaman's Federation. We provide in the rules that if a member is on the books at Dunedin, and he goes to Auckland and joins a vessel whose articles are taken out in Auckland, he transfers his membership from Dunedin on to the Auckland books. I would like to know whether this clause is meant to apply in that direction, or whether it is meant to apply that any union can simply give a member a clearance-card, and that terminates his membership of any particular union. I think that the section would be better if it were to read that, in connection with the transfer, the right could be given to a member of any trades-union to transfer his membership on the books to any industrial union of the same industry. 7. I do not think there is anything in that, because the whole clause deals with " what societies may be registered." A member can terminate his membership of any particular union by paying his dues up to date and getting his clearance-card; he has no further liability then. If he wanted to leave the union he would have to give three months' notice as provided for, would he not?— Yes. There is another matter here; it is simply a technical point: subsection (2) of the same section—l think that before the words "as the case may be " the words "of workers " should be inserted. 8. Mr. Collins.] You would reverse the words?— Yes. Coming to clause 11, I disapprove of this clause to some material extent, because it will be the means of largely affecting our organization. If in Wellington the Federation were desirous of registering another industrial union here—~ i.e., in Wellington—this clause would, to a very large extent, prohibit them from doing so. It is known, I believe, pretty well that there is already a Seamen's Union in Wellington, but that is not a portion of the Federation. Outside of that union I might say that, according to inquiries I made, we have 1,270 members in New Zealand — i.e., outside of the local organization altogether—and amongst them we have 160 men on the boats at the present time, and who are looking for their living in the various vessels trading out of this port. Ido not think that this clause would permit us to register another branch in Wellington if we desired to do so. The President of the Arbitration Court stated that it is necessary that in a seaman's line of business there should be an industrial association for the purpose of making one award for the whole of the colony. From what I know—and I am pretty well cognisant of the facts concerning this matter—there is absolutely no hope of this union ever coming into the Federation again. The whole of the Seamen's Unions in Australia have thrown this local union overboard and will not give it any recognition whatever. I think something should be done in

I.—lo

30

regard to this clause, whereby our Federation, which is composed of such a large body of men in New Zealand, to say nothing of Australia; the ramifications of the Federated Seamen's Union extend throughout Australia, and, as I have said, this clause would at the present time prohibit them from registering any portion of the federation in Wellington. I would also favour an alteration in the direction that it read, " the Court " instead of " the Board," although my opinion is that no Board is so biassed as to give any prejudicial opinion in regard to a matter of this sort. Clause 12, subsection (2) —" Nothing in this Act or in the registration of an industrial union under this Act," &c. : I think this is a restriction that is placed upon unions without any due cause, and I think if this is to apply to a union in one direction it ought to apply to the employers in another direction—that an employer should not be permitted to form any organization of workers whatever. This clause prohibits the unions from entering into any manufacturing operations. 9. Mr. Tanner.] Have you not misunderstood it ? It does not prohibit, it does not authorise. — No; it does not authorise. Therefore I say there is no necessity for the section. There is nothing in the Act which gives a union any authority to commence any industry. Ido not think that a union should be prohibited in any manner from commencing any industry if it desires to do so. In 1888 the Seamen's Union had very good and substantial reasons to run vessels on this coast in opposition to the Northern Steamship Company, and there is no telling what might happen again. I take it that the clause is meant to prevent a union from commencing an industry of any kind. Now I wish to deal with clause 16. 10. The Chairman.] With regard to the words " not exceeding one acre " ?—Yes. I cannot say for the life of me why a union should be narrowed down to one acre. Supposing, for example, a union desired to erect any building of any extent with a nice piece of land to it, this clause would prohibit it: for instance, we might have reason in this city to build a Trades Hall, and there is no telling what we may desire to have attached in connection with that Trades Hall. We might desire to have a ground to hold our Bight Hours Demonstration, sports, &c. I say that no union should be narrowed down to the extent of one acre. It is simply following the lines of the Trades Union Act. Clause 21, " Any Council or other body, however designated, representing not less than four industrial unions," &c. : in regard to this clause I think that, outside of the number of unions, industrial associations nowadays should only consist of industrial unions of the one industry, and, further, I think that the number should be narrowed down to either two or three industrial unions. 11. Mr. Collins.] You mean " two or more," do you not ?—Yes, " two or more." If industrial associations are constituted of the one industry you then have the one trade consolidated into one body with a Federated Council over their head, and that being so it would be within the power of the Court, where any dispute affects that association of the one industry, to make an award colonial instead of local. That is, of course, if the parties desire it. 12. The Chairman.] Why should you not elect the Court by the registered unions, and there is no necessity then for an industrial association in the whole thing?—An industrial union's jurisdiction does not extend outside of one particular industrial district; is it right to say that an industrial union carrying on a business of any particular industry in any particular district shall have the right to go to the Court to the detriment of the other unions and say, " We ask that this Court shall make their award universal throughout the colony " ? 13. The only thing is to decide whether you will allow the industrial unions by themselves to elect the Court the same as the Board, and to take a dispute into the Court, is it not ?—The industrial unions have the power now to take a dispute into the Court, but they have not the power of election to the Court. I may say that you hstve here in Wellington a Trades Council with various industrial unions affiliated. Now, there are no two unions in that Council of the same industry, but that body, being an industrial association, has the power, so far as the wording of this Bill is concerned, to go to the Court as an association on behalf of any union and ask the Court that their award shall be made universal throughout the colony. It is necessary that unions that cannot be affiliated with the Trades Council shall be fully considered in every part of the colony. Clause 85, subsection (1), paragraph (d) : "The currency of the award being any specified period not exceeding two years from the date of the award." I think that the extreme should be three years, then you allow the Court a certain time to go and come on. In pretty well every award that has been made in the colony two years has been the specified time of its term. I think that two years in the Bill is too little. 14. Mr. Collins.] Would you say, " not less than two years " ? —Yes, not less than two years, and not exceeding three. Then, coming to clause 86, subsection (3): "Power to extend the award so as to join and bind thereto " : this is where the matter of an industrial association constituted of industrial unions of the one industry ought to come in. I think the Court should only have the power to make the award colonial where it affects industrial associations of the one industry throughout the colony. 15. Mr. Tanner.] The last line says, "in the same industry." Do you not think that applies? —It does not appear to me to be sufficiently explicit. I think it should be more so, seeing that this Bill applies to workers directly. 16. Mr. Morrison.] A suggestion has been made to insert the words "in the colony" after the word " employer ; " would that meet your difficulty ? —lt would be beneficial to a certain extent if that were inserted. Clause 104; I think there is too much power in this clause left in the hands of the Minister. In subsection (3) I would suggest that an alteration be made ; at present it reads " the Minister may from time to time," &c. I suggest that it read "the Minister of Eailways shall, if desired, enter into an industrial agreement." 17. Mr. Collins.] Would not the proposal to bring all the Government employes under the Act do away with your difficulty?—lt would not be sufficient. 18. Mr. Arnold.] What is the difference between " may from time to time " and " shall if desired " ?—" Shall" is compulsory, and " may "is not. That is how I take it.

31

I.- -10

19. Mr. Morrison.] What about subclause (5) of clause 104?— I would suggest that subclause (5) and other clauses down to subclause (10) be all struck out. Then, coming to clause 113, I think that the Government should say that the operations of this Act shall be enforced on all. 20. The Chairman."] Are those all the clauses you object to ?—Yes, but I may say I have a few other points to refer to in connection with matter that has been deleted from this Bill. The Chairman.] The best -plan will be for you to hand in any written matter in regard to anything that you know has been deleted from the Bill. 21. Mr. Laurenson.] You say you object to clause 11 where "the Eegistrar may refuse to register a society " &c. ?—Yes. 22. You represent the Seamen's Federated Union?— Yes. 23. There is a local society in Wellington ? —Yes. 24. Is it registered ? —Yes. 25. Have you a branch ?—No. 26. How many men have you in the Federated Seamen's Union, roughly speaking?— The report I had from the head office in Dunedin shows there are 857 ; in Auckland there are 394. 27. That is over I,2oo?—Yes ; we have about 1,270. 28. How many are there supposed to be in the branch in Wellington ?—According to the return there were supposed to be 547. 29. Mr. Tanner.] You appear to be under the impression that the Bill imposes a grievance on trades unions in subsection (2) of section 12 by not authorising them to embark in particular industries ?—Yes, I do. 30. And you object also to the 1-acre limit ?—Yes. 31. What is the object of a trades union?— The object of a trades union is directly to conserve the interests of its members, and to better their condition, financially and otherwise. 32. You mean with regard to wages, hours, and conditions of employment ?—Yes. 33. Are you aware that under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act of 1877 a society can be formed to embark in an industrial enterprise, purchase lands, and do other things outside the ordinary functions of trade-unions : are you not confusing the objects of such a society with those of an ordinary trade-union ?—I do not know the Act you refer to. I have never read it. The Chairman.] Those are all the questions, Mr. Young. You will please hand in those amendments you suggest, and remark that you incorporate them in your evidence.—Very well, sir, I have two amendments here which I desire to have incorporated in my evidence, and I will hand them in. [Suggested amendments handed in. See Appendix to Evidence.] I might say in connection with these amendments, I forwarded draft copies to the Dunedin head office, and also to Auckland, and the reply I got was to the effect that both Dunedin and Auckland unanimously indorsed them. Mr. Brutoji: I have just one remark, Mr. Chairman, in regard to subsection (2) of section 103, which says, " The Board or Court may sit during the day or at night, as it thinks fit." I strongly object to night sittings in regard to either Boards or Courts, and I am of opinion that disputes can be considered much better during the day.

APPENDIX.

SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE LABOUE BILLS COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF EEPEESENTATIVES.

From President, Master Tailors' Union. Oub trade want an alteration in the Conciliation Act compelling all making-up order-work, either by chart or any other form of measurement, to pay the tailor and tailoresses' log as paid by merchant tailors in any city where the factory is situated. Auckland, 9th July, 1900.

From the Wood-woekees' Employees. We think industrial unions should have available for inspection complete membership rolls. This is only fair and necessary if we must give preference. Dunedin, 10th July, 1900.

From Otaqo Coal-minces , Industbial Union op Woekees. That where any industrial unions are working under an award, they (the industrial union) may appoint one of their number to watch their interests in or about the mine.

I.—lo

32

From Trades and Laboub Council, Christchurch. Clause 5 : Amended so as to make it " seven," in lieu of " ten," for workers wishing to organize. Clause 16 :" One acre " deleted. Clause 85, subsection (3): " The industrial district or districts to which the award relates." The remainder of this cause we wish deleted. Clause 93, subsection (4): Paragraph 2 struck out. Clause 104, subsection (9), deleted. Clause 113 struck out, and the following substituted in lieu thereof : " That the Government be amenable to the provisions of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act and awards of the Court, and industrial agreements, in the particular trades affected." The council suggests a very important addition to the new measure, which is clause 29 of the old Acts of 1894, providing for the restriction of strikes and lockouts, which it considers must have inadvertently been left out of the new Bill in its reconstruction, but it trusts it will be included in the new Bill, with a maximum penalty provided of £100.' The council are not quite sure as to whether clause 74 will exclude the "legal fraternity" from acting as counsel in breaches, as the Judge rules a breach is a quasi-cnminsA case, so it has left this matter in your hands, and wish to obtain your opinion on this clause. Christchurch, 10th July, 1900.

From the President of the New Zealand Federated Boot Trade Association of Industrial Workers and the President of the New Zealand Boot-managers' Association Union op Employers. The points we desire to urge are : First, that it is absolutely necessary that a clause should be inserted in the Bill by which all awards relating to industries which produce goods of an interchangeable character should be. made to apply throughout New Zealand, and not to provincial districts only. The Court to have the discretionary power to declare a particular class as interchangeable goods. With regard to the product of labour which is not interchangeable, the Court should have power to make its award apply to one or more industrial districts. The second point is that the Bill should be so worded as to remove the possibility of doubt that every award made is to apply to every worker and to every person who employs a worker in connection with the industry, whether union or non-union, or whether he or they were made parties to the award when given. The organizations which we have the honour to represent, and by whose authorioy we act, are the New Zealand Federated Boot Trade Industrial Union of Workers, which represents fully 95 per cent, of all the workers employed in that industry in New Zealand, and the New Zealand Boot-manufacturers' Association Union of Employers, which includes all the largest employers of the labour in the trade in Wellington and the whole of the South Island. We respectfully request your Committee to insert clauses in the Arbitration Bill which will provide for the two points we raise, and that you will support by vote and influence these proposals when before the House.

From the Secretary of the Federated Seamen's Union, Dunedin. The Seamen's Union desire to bring under your notice certain sections of the proposed amended Conciliation and Arbitration Act which we are positive will be inimical to the interests of our federation if permitted to become law in their present shape. The first which calls for comment is section 11, which gives the Registrar or Conciliation Board power to determine whether a union shall be entitled to establish a branch where another union exists purporting to deal with an industry of a similar nature. That proviso would probably be judicious and beneficial provided that all industries were thoroughly organized and established in the colony. Such, however, is not the case. The Seamen's Union have a serious difficulty to contend with, inasmuch as a very small section, styling themselves the Wellington Branch of the Federated Seamen's Union of New Zealand, have seceded from the main body of the federation and]established themselves in Wellington under the foregoing title in entire opposition to the wishes of the large majority of the members of the federation. And while they are masquerading under our name they have absolutely no connection with the federation, and have been repudiated by all the branches both in New Zealand and Australia. We would therefore ask you to seriously consider the advisability of modifying section 11 of the proposed new Act so as to allow the federation to establish themselves in Wellington. We think that could be effected by leaving it to a majority of the members to say whether that should be done or not. We find that section 21 will also debar us from forming an industrial association, for the reason that we do not posses four branches. Experience has shown that three branches are sufficient for our requirements, and, being a large and powerful organization, we claim the right to become an associated body if we so desire it. As you are thoroughly conversant with the nature of our organization I refrain from minute detail, and would respectfully ask that your undoubted influence with your committee be exercised in conserving our interests as far as possible. 12i'i July, 1900.

33

I.—lo

From the Sbceetaey of the Seamen's Union, Dunedin. I have had an opportunity of perusing the new Act, and it occurs to me that if clause 11 is allowed to pass as it stands the prospect of our federation establishing a branch at Wellington will be completely gone. The contents of clause 14, in my opinion, does not in any way modify the stipulations contained in section 11, which gives the Eegistrar power, in the first place, to refuse registration. The same section, I note, gives the local Conciliation Board the power of a final settlement in so far as the establishment of a branch is concerned. There are some very strong objections to be raised against either the Eegistrar or the Conciliation Board being vested with those powers. There are strong local influences, and probably prejudices, which might be brought to bear, besides which the loss of time and expense would be no small consideration in the matter. From our point of view, it is imperative that clause 11 be either struck out entirely or modified to meet the requirements of the organization desirable to establish themselves. The only suggestion I can offer in the direction of modification is to draft section 11 so that in the event of the majority of members of any organization wishing to conserve their interests at any place they could do so without the law putting unnecessary obstacles in the way. We all deplore the friction that exists in our organization, but it is there through no fault of ours, and, if the law is enacted as it stands, there is no foreseeing the injury that may accrue. It will certainly leave matters as they stand at present, and will probably resolve itself into a case of the " tail wagging the dog." I notice, further, that section 21 provides that there must be not less than four industrial unions to constitute and register an industrial association. This section will also materially interfere with our future plans of reorganization. Our requirements only necessitate having three branches—viz., Dunedin, Wellington, and Auckland. There is no other port in New Zealand where the membership would be sufficient to warrant a branch being established, and to prohibit one of the strongest, if not the strongest, and old-established unions in New Zealand, from forming an industrial association because they did not possess four branches would certainly be a rank injustice. For reasons which I need not enumerate we cannot see our way to affiliate with the Trades Council, and as it is only associated bodies who can make recommendations for the workers representative on the Arbitration Court, it would mean that the most powerful organization in the country would be disfranchised from a voice in that appointment, and otherwise left to the mercy of any set of individuals to step in and establish themselves in opposition. I have already explained verbally the nature of the injustice of the recommendations for the arbitrator being confined to industrial associations, and I think you will agree with me that each society which registers under the Act should have a voice in that important appointment. Some months ago I wrote the Hon. the Premier on this point, and was given to understand the matter would be favourably considered and embodied in the new Act. But, alas !it is not there, vide section 61. It has occurred to me that the number " four " in section 21 has been prompted by the fact of there being four principal centres in New Zealand. It does not follow, however, especially so in our case, that every organization must necessarily have a branch in each centre. Christchurch is not a seaport; consequently we do not require a branch there. Furthermore, take the coal-miners. The bulk of that industry is located on the West Coast and in Otago. They may only have two unions in existence, and although they may number thousands—which they do—-they also are debarred from forming an industrial association. Personally, I see no great difficulty in amending the Act in 'the directions indicated, and I trust we may have your hearty assistance and the co-operation of your colleagues in endeavouring to effect the necessary alterations. 10th July, 1900.

Feom the Wellington Employees' Association. lieport of Sub-committee respecting Amendments to the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The Committee, having considered the Act and amendment thereof, recommend as follows :— 1. That all provision for Conciliation Boards be struck out. 2. Failing success in the above, that provision be made for reports of proceedings and retention of all documents until case finally disposed of. 3. Costs of dispute to be borne by parties to a dispute. 4. Question re powers of a Board in clause 27, page 9—Act of 1894. (Powers of a Board to enter factories, ships, &c, to question and investigate). 5. Clause 38, subsection (1) : Quorum to be three-fourths of Board— i.e., at lease four, and not Chairman and two others as at present. 6. Clause 40, subsection (1): Delete words between " member" and "or." 7. Clause 43 : Powers of Board should be determined, as to power of demanding evidence (see letter from solicitor). 8. Clause 44: Board to report within one month of hearing evidence. It is also recommended that the opinion of the association's solicitor be obtained as to whether the Board has special power with the Court in procuring evidence of witnesses.*

* The opinion asked for waa got, and is as follows :— Deab Sib, — Wellington, 27th March, 1900. In reply to your letter, I have to state that I think section 43 gives the Board the same power as is vested in the Court. The section states that the Board shall carefully inquire into, &c, and for tbe purpose shall have all the powers of summoning witnesses. This seems to me to be almost as effectual and full a power as can be given. Yours, &c, O. D. Morpeth, Esq., Wellington. T. W. Hislop.

s—l. 10.

I.—lo.

34

Notes on Consideration of above Report by Executive Committee. 1. That the Board should be so constituted that those who judge the dispute should be chosen from the ranks of the trade engaged in the dispute. 2. That Arbitration Court decisions should aim at being uniform for the whole colony. Wellington, 22nd March, 1900.

Consideration of Conciliation and Arbitration Bill. From the Wellington Employees' Association. Clause 2 : Add to line 17, " employing workers." Clause 3 —Line 13, subsection 2, (d) : Strongly protest against this, on the grounds that the bulk of the workers are not unionists. H. Warner, a representative of the Carpenters' Union, yesterday at Wellington Conciliation Board said there were nine hundred, and Mr. Bolland, a member of the union, on oath, said there were at least five hundred carpenters in Wellington; the secretary (Mr. Scott) of the union said that the members of the union amounted to about one hundred : and yet they claim preference. Also quote Harbour Board leaflet. (1.) An individual member of the union shall not refuse work when offered it; if he does, the union should be responsible. (2.) Should be liable to their employers for the good behaviour of its individual members—for damage through gross carelessness, wilful destruction of property, loss through absence on account of drunkenness, petty theft, pillage of cargo, &c. Clause 5 : Kules of unions should be made more strict. They should provide that each union must guarantee all its members to be bond fide tradesmen in the business or trade represented by that union. That any worker proved to be dishonest be immediately expelled from the union to which he may belong. That the officers of one industrial union should be ineligible to hold any office in another industrial union. Clause 12 : Approve; but make it quite clear. A man must be on one side or another. Clause 21: Limit the number of associations to one to each district. Clause 17, (6): Eegistrar should give a notice of, say, three weeks. Clause 32 : That twenty-one days' notice instead of three should be given. Clause 36 : Advocate Board to be constituted of two assessors on each side, selected from the particular trade in dispute, and the Chairman be permanent, and a Magistrate or a lawyer. Clause 41, (4) : Cut out all words after "imprisonment." Old Act clause 28 should be reinstated. Clause 53 : Add the words "the clerk shall be empowered to supply certified copies at (say, one shilling) reasonable charge." Clause 55 : After the words " all the parties " add " or their attorneys." Clause 57, subsection (2): Eeinstate clause 46 of old Act, 1894. Clause 66 : Strike out " for six months or upwards " (line 39). Clause 76 : Shorthand report of evidence should be taken. Clause 85, (c): That awards should apply, whenever the Court deems it expedient, to the whole colony. Clause 86, (1) : That the power to amend should be limited to three months. Clause 87, (2) : Alter to twenty-one days to give time to procure evidence. (3) Extend so that in every case the privilege may be accorded to parties to a dispute to elect to take their case direct to the Court. Government reserves this right in case of railways, see section 104, subsection (4). Clause 96, (2) : Ask how can an industrial association bring a dispute ? Clause 113 : Strike out; make apply to Government departments. Wellington, 12th July, 1900.

From the Operative Tailors' Union. A dispute is pending in the order-tailoring trade. Act as at present not workable. Order-work and factory-work should be defined so as to arrive at a fair award, see June Labour Journal,. Christchurch tailors re Munday and Armstrong. Auckland trade more complicated. Auckland, 11th July, 1900.

From the Amalgamated Society op Caepenters and Joiners. This Board indorses the recommendations of the Canterbury Trades and Labour Council re the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill now before the House of Eepresentatives. Christchurch, 11th July, 1900.

From the Shag Point Section of Coal-miners, Industrial Union of Workers of Otago. That power may be given to a committee to strike a member off the roll who has left the district and been absent for more than three months (section 3). And section sof the latest amended Act relating to notification through the post to members.

From the Wellington Trades Council. Council approves of the insertion of subsection (d) of clause 2. Aso of the interpretation of " worker " in the same clause (2). Clauses 3 and 4 : Council is entirely in sympathy with these two new clauses.

35

L—lo

Clause 5, subsection (h): Council approves of the insertion of the words " except pursuant to a clearance-card duly issued in accordance with the rules," but suggests that the subsection be further amended by the insertion in the forty-sixth line, after the word "fees," of the words "fines, levies"; also that a similar amendtoient be made, after the word "fees," in clause 15 (first line). Clause 5 ; Council approves of the raising of the number of members to ten to constitute a union of workers. Clause 11: Council suggests the insertion of the words " same industrial district "in lieu of the words " same locality " ; and that subsection (1) be amended to read as follows: " That the Eegistrar shall refuse to register a society in the same industrial district and connected with the same industry where there exists an industrial union to which the members of such society might conveniently belong " ; and that subsection (2) of the proviso be struck out. Clause 14: Council suggests the amendment of subsection (1) by the insertion of the words, after "any," in the second line-~-viz., "locality in its own." The subsection would then read: " An industrial union may also have a branch office in any locality in its own industrial district," &c> Clause 16 : That this clause be amended by striking out the words " not exceeding one acre " in the thirty-seventh line. Council is strongly opposed to the intention of subsection (2) of clause 12, as in its opinion it would debar unions from investing their funds in co-operative undertakings. Clause 17 : Council approves of subsection (6) of this clause, and suggests that a new subclause be inserted to the effect that the Eegistrar have authority to cancel the registration of any society that for a period of two half-years fails to supply its returns. Clause 21 : Council is strongly opposed to this clause, and suggests that clause 12 of the 1894 Act might be inserted with advantage in its place. Clause 25 : Council suggets that this clause be amended by inserting after the word " agreement " a provision that any employer or firm of employers starting in business shall be bound by the provisions of such agreement. Council suggests that section 29 of the 1894 Act be inserted, and chat a penalty not exceeding £100 be provided for a breach thereof; also that section 27 of the same Act be inserted. Clause 34 : Council suggests that this clause be amended by the striking-out of the words " or branch office, as the case may be." Clause 52, subsection (9) : Council suggests that the word " two " in the thirty-second line be struck out, and that the word " three " be inserted in lieu thereof; also that a similar amendment be made in clause 85, subsection (d), and in clause 86, subsection (2). Clause 86, subsection (3) : Council suggests that the following proviso be added: " That this subsection shall not apply to any industrial union, industrial association, or employer bound by an industrial agreement or award." With these amendments the Bill meets with the hearty approval of the council. Wellington, 11th July, 1900.

From the New Zealand Fedeeated Boot Teadb Industbial Association of Workmen. Executive brings under notice the fact that in the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Bill there is no provision for the continuance of an award pending the entering into of another. The Executive trusts the Labour Bills Committee will see its way to the insertion of a clause to give effect to what is required.

From the Geeymouth Wharf Laboueees' Industrial Union of Woekees. The union strongly objects to clause 113 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Bill of 1900. We deem it necessary that the Government railways should ■ come under the Conciliation and Arbitration Acts the same as any other employers of labour, otherwise the Bill in some cases would be detrimental to our union, as there are plenty of our members working on the wharf as casual labourers to the railways.

From the Fedebated Seamen's Union of New Zealand. It is suggested that clause 21 be amended to read as follows : " Any council or other body, however designated, consisting of not less than three industrial unions of the one industry of employers or workers, representing not less than three industrial districts, may be registered as an industrial association of employers or workers under this Act." That the following addition be made to clause 75 : "In the case of a dispute affecting a registered industrial association under this Act the Court shall have power, if sufficient evidence is adduced'in support of the same, to make an award applicable to the whole of the industrial districts in the colony."

From the Wellington Geocees' Association. Section 3, subsection (3) : Always provided that no one shall be admitted a member of any union of workers if unable to produce satisfactory discharges from last and former employers. Also provided that each industrial union must guarantee all its members to be bond fide tradesmen in the business or trade represented by that union. And provided that any worker proved to be dishonest be immediately expelled from the union to which he may belong. And also provided that the chairman, secretary, or other officers of one industrial union are strictly debarred from holding office in any other industrial union.

I.—lo

36

Section 33 : That, instead of Boards as at present constituted, when disputes arise a Conciliation Board be elected, consisting of three members to represent the employers, and the same number to represent the workers, in the particular industry affected. That the Governor appoint a Stipendiary Magistrate as permanent Chairman. That, in the opinion of this association, as a complement to the Imprisonment for Debt Limitation Bill, it should be made compulsory that all salaries (or wages) be paid weekly: this to apply to all Government departments as well as private employers. That the retrospective clause, inserted in the House of Representatives, is unfair to traders, and without legislative precedent in measures of this kind, and should be struck out. That association urges upon the Government the desirability of at once passing into law the Trading Stamps and Coupons Abolition Bill, now before the House, without alteration. That the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Bill does not provide for Chinese storekeepers. When it is considered that European shopkeepers pay standard wages, and keep open comparatively short hours, it must be conceded that it is very unfair that they should have to meet the keen competition of Asiatic traders, who avoid conforming to these very desirable conditions. They therefore consider that this class of traders should be provided for in the Bill. lltll July, 1900.

Prom the Wellington Tbadbs Council. The council desires to see the Act amended in the direction that the Boards and Courts shall grant preference of employment to trades-unionists, provided there are members of the unions equally qualified with non-members to perform the particular work required to be done, and. are ready and willing to undertake it. ■ Wellington, 12th July, 1900.

From Me. D. P. Fishes, Wellington Conciliation Boabd. Clause 15: To "fees and dues" add also "fines and levies." (The fees and dues are interpreted by lawyers as subscriptions, being the weekly payments, and what is due thereon. Fines are for breaches of rules, and for not attending meetings. Levies are collections made when funds run out.) A dispute having been referred to a Board, in which not less than three employers are involved, and the Board having made its recommendation, an industrial agreement, embodying the Board's recommendation, shall be drawn up and lodged with the Clerk of Awards for signature. In the case of two-thirds of the employers signing the agreement, the Clerk of Awards shall notify the one-third that, as they have not signed, the Chairman of the Board will, under his 'hand, attach to the agreement their names, and the agreement so signed shall be as binding on them as though they had themselves signed the agreement. With respect to the hearing of any dispute, the Board shall have power to join as parties thereto employers employing non-union workers only. Such employers must be connected with or engaged in the same industry as that to which the Board has been called together to adjudicate upon. Before entering on the exercise of the functions of their office, the members of the Board shall make oath or affirmation before the Eegistrar that they will faithfully and impartially perform the duties of their office, and also that, except in the discharge of their duties, they will not disclose to any person any evidence or other matter brought before the Board.

From the Auckland Teade and Laboue Council. This council would recommend that a clause be inserted in the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill limiting the age of apprentices, and that such age and limitation shall be in conformity with the regulations in force in the Government employ. That the Eegistrar shall refuse to register a union or society of workers in the same locality and connected with the same industry where a union of the same calling, trade, or occupation already exists. That section 12, clause (2), be struck out. Section 21, clause (1): Any council or other body, however designated, representing not less than three industrial unions of either employers or workers may be registered as an industrial association of employers or workers under this Act. Addition to clause 75: In the case of a dispute affecting a registered industrial association under this Act, the Court shall have power, if sufficient evidence is adduced in support of the same, to make an award applicable to the whole of the industrial districts in the colony. 20th July, 1900.

From Industeial Associations. Addition to clause 75: In the case of a dispute affecting a registered industrial association under this Act, the Court shall have power, if sufficient evidence is adduced in support of same, to make an award applicable to the whole of the industrial districts in the colony.

37

I.—lo

From the Pbesident, Canterbury Trades and Labour Council. That some provision be made to enable federated unions to call meetings in centres of each industrial district, and that the vote of the majority of members present at the meetings shall decide the proposals submitted with reference to citing employers under the Act. At present a federated body, such as the bootmakers, tailoresses, &c, have, according to present provisions of Act, to call a meeting to which proposals re breaches of award, &c, have to be submitted, and recently Mr. Justice Edwards ruled that certain cases were not properly before the Court, because meetings had been called in each centre, instead of one meeting only, and all the members of the federation summoned to that meeting. And, also, that, owing to the difficulty of obtaining an authentic record of wages paid, the council respectfully urges upon the Government to mak6 provision that all employers shall keep a wages-book, and be responsible under penalty for its correctness. Christchureh, Ist July, 1900.

From the Chairman, Wellington Board of Conciliation. The following are my own suggestions, and not the Board's, nor is the Board or any member in any way responsible for them : — As the words "industrial," "industry," &c, are used so many times in the Bill, I hold the opinion that Judges, or the Chairman of the Court of Arbitration, might contend that the definition of the word "worker" in clause 2 must be read in connection with numerous other clauses, and thus made to be so restricted as to mean only industrial workers or persons engaged in an industry, the word "industry" being narrowed as it has recently been by the Chairman of the Arbitration Court. I therefore suggest that in the interpretation clause, in the definition of " industrial dispute," the words " any employment " be substituted for " industrial matters." In the next subdivision the words " relation to any employment" be substituted for " industrial matters" at the beginning of the clause, and the words "kind of employment" be substituted for " industry " in the third and fourth lines. In subdivision (a) of the same clause the words "in any industry" be struck out in the second line. In subdivision (c) the words "in any industry" be struck out of lines 2 and 3, and the word " therein " off the end of the clause. In subdivision (c) the word " employment " be substituted for " industry " in the first line. In the definition of "industrial association" the word "any" be substituted for "an industrial" in the first line, and the words "of employers or of workers" be inserted after the word " association." In the definition of " industrial union" substitute " any " for " industrial," and insert the words " of workers " after the word " union." Insert somewhere a definition of "industrial agreement." From the definition of " worker " strike off the words "in any industry " from the end. Very important. If this last be not done the effect of the extension of definition of the word " industry " will be destroyed by the definition of " worker." Clause 7 : In line 17 substitute " employment " for " industry." Clause 23 : Why " three " in line 8 and " two " in clause 52, subdivision (9) ? Clause 41: Strike out subdivisions (2) and (3). Add new clause after. Alter subdivision (5). The Bill provides that should a member be absent, though his absence might be caused by accident, illness, or any other cause, from a meeting of the Board, however unimportant that meeting might be, and the Board did not meet again within thirty days, his office would by that one absence be rendered vacant. Needs alteration. Proposed new clause 41a : If any member of the Board tenders his resignation or becomes bankrupt, the Clerk on being notified of the fact shall promptly take all such proceedings as may be necessary to duly fill the vacancy to be caused by the said resignation or bankruptcy, but the member who has tendered his resignation or become bankrupt shall continue in office and be a member of the Board until the election of his successor is gazetted by His Excellency the Governor. As soon as this election is gazetted, the person who has tendered his resignation or become bankrupt shall, in consequence of such resignation or bankruptcy, cease to be a member of the Board. Clause 52: In subdivision (2) the word "obtaining" or the word "procuring" should be inserted after the word " oaths "in second line. Very important. See subdivision (6): To whom must the Board report ? The Board should be sworn to secrecy as members of the Court are, but provision for this should be by a new clause, under the heading " Boards of Conciliation," and not by mere tail to be stuck on to clause 68. Very important. 39a. Every member of Board to make oath, &c, before a Judge of Supreme Court (who is hereby empowered and directed to administer the same without fee). Clause 52 : There should also be inserted a subdivision (2a), as follows : " All books, papers, and other documents produced before the Board, whether produced voluntarily or pursuant to summons, may be inspected by the Board, and also by such of the parties as the Board allows; but the information obtained therefrom, unless it be embodied in the recommendations made by the Board on the matters in dispute submitted to them, shall not be made public, and such parts of the documents as in the opinion of the Board do not relate to the matter at issue may be sealed up. Any breach of this subsection shall render the person guilty of making public the information liable to a penalty not exceeding £50, on judgment by the Court of Arbitration." Add in clause 95, if necessary, the power to deal with this subdivision. Clause 76 : There should also be provision for a penalty in subdivision (4) of clause 76.

6—l. 10.

I.—lo.

38

Petition presented by Miss Whitehobn and Miss Daly. We, the undersigned employers and employes engaged in the wholesale clothing trade established in the following centres—Dunedin, Christchurch, and Wellington—finding that some steps are necessary in order to protect a large and important industry, affecting a number of employers, and employes who are willing to work and be paid under the present existing tailoresses' log in use in these centres, do humbly petition your honourable House to introduce the following necessary amendment to the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act during the present session of Parliament: " That where a majority of the employers and employes engaged in any industry in which the goods manufactured are interchangeable throughout the colony have entered into an industrial agreement, such an agreement be made binding on all other employers and employes engaged in that industry throughout the colony"; or else, "That power be given to the Arbitration Court in cases where disputes arise in such an industry to make all other employers and employes engaged in that industry throughout the colony parties to such dispute." Your petitioners will ever humbly pray. Approximate Cost of Paper.— Preparation, not given; printing (1,525 copies), £23195. 6d.

By Authority: John Mackay, Government Printer, Wellington.—l9oo.

Price is.]