XXXIII

H.— 6.

worked for non-union shops where union rules were not in force. The employers did not object to union men ; all they objected to was that they should be forced to employ only union men. He had had experience of a man being employed by his firm who was not a member of the union, and had to leave his work, and also men who were union members who had been fined, and were not allowed to work till the fine was paid. The men also reserved to themselves the right to start businesses as against the very men who employed them. This was as a union. They not only entered into keen competition with the employers, but wished to rule the price of wages and the business of the factories. They also withdrew some of the best men from the factories to carry on the opposition as against the employers. So far as the manufacturers were concerned, he did not know of any law in any civilised country where an employer was obliged to accept men from a certain organization and nowhere else. As to the union men and non-union men not working together, he called attention to the fact that in connection with the Engineers' Union there was no pressure brought to compel men to join the union, nor were employers compelled to take men only from union organizations. To say that the acceptance of these clauses meant the downfall of unionism was absurd. Let those who run these unions make them popular by showing the advantages of them. The employers simply wished to exercise the same right as the men. They wished to claim the right to select for whom they would work. The employers wished to have the same privilege by selecting the men they might employ without being forced to take them from any organization.. This was what they wanted, and which it was their moral right to have, irrespective of any Board or legislation. Now, as to the question of skilled labour. The boot was made in sections, and certain sections did not require skilled labour. These were made by unskilled labour. This unskilled labour the manufacturer claimed should be paid by the week at such rate as the men or boys might agree upon. As to the qualification for " skilled labour," he considered that youths going to the trade should serve at least five years in the skilled-labour departments. If the Board decided to add the machinery branch to the skilled-labour department, he would be of opinion that all employed therein should serve five years as in the clicking, benching, and finishing departments. Mr. Arnold asked the Chairman whether the Board would examine the witnesses under oath. The Chairman said he was afraid they could not do so. Evidence was then called by Mr. Arnold, as follows: — W. C. Miles stated that he was a boot-finisher, working in Wellington for an employer belonging to the Manufacturers' Association. He had been through the statement of the manufacturers, and had read the memorandum. The words "skilled labour" were used once or twice. As far as the wages of the trade were concerned, all operatives employed in boot-factories were considered to be skilled labour. He did not know any labour connected with bootmaking which could be learnt in one hour. If an operative was making any portion of a boot except putting in eyelets he was, in the opinion of witness, a skilled labourer. What was known as an " eyelet boy" had never beenrecognised as belonging to the bootmakers' trade. The " team system," as he understood, meant several men working together, the work being handed from one to the other until complete. The system could be worked either under the weekly-wage or the piece system. It was oppressive, because it caused a displacement of labour —that was, a fewer number of men would get through more work. A fast man was generally picked out of a shop as a pacemaker, and the other men would-have to keep up to his standard or make room for some one else. In that way it would be oppressive to the operatives. He had never seen the system worked, but had heard of it; nor did he know of any other system. He had read the rule with reference to the individual right of the employer to employ whom he pleased, and the man to take what work he liked. In his own experience it had always been the custom for a man to leave when he liked, and for an employer tO employ whom he liked. The objection he had to rule No. 1 was that a third party should not be introduced. By a third party he meant a non-unionist. With regard to clause 2, as to the abolition of distinction between organized and non-organized labour, it was not a fair clause, because heobjected that a union man should be able to decide whether he would work with a non-union man. Besides, he objected to non-union men getting the advantage under this clause of the reference to the Board. That was, that a non-unionist should not be allowed to work under the statement, as all the expenses connected therewith were borne by the union. His contention was that the employer should only employ union men in the branches mentioned in the statement. There were plenty of members of unions at the present time to fill all the positions in the various factories. Allowing for increase of trade, there would still be sufficient union men to answer the demand. Whenever there was a rush in trade plenty of men came into town and joined the union previous to getting work. He had been secretary of his union three years and a half. The manufacturers had not been prevented from employing non-union labour so far as he knew. If an apprentice were put into the machinery department he should be compelled to serve for five years. By Mr. Gapes : He could not tell of any boot-factory where the " team system " was in force. By Mr. Bridger: He had never seen the team system at work. There would be no difference from a manufacturer's point of view between the team system and subdivision of labour. There should be no subdivision of labour in his opinion unless it were dealt with by the Local Board. The Local Board should have power to deal with this matter. He understood that the team system was carried on in America to a large extent. He should call this the subdivision of labour carried on with the team system. He had no knowledge as to the wages paid in America. He would not disbelieve the statement that higher wages were paid in America than in any part of the world. He would admit that it was possible that higher wages might be made with the team system. The workmen did not admit that the American boots were superior to those made elsewhere. So far as Wellington was concerned, an employer could employ whom he liked without reference to the union. His experience had been that an employer employed a non-union man, but as soon as he got work the man joined the union. There were sufficient unionists here now to grapple with the v—H. 6.