T. YOUNG.]

7

I.—9a.

49. And the reason is the expense to which your union would be put in bringing cases before the Court ?—lt would double the expense, and we find the Arbitration Court quite satisfactory. 50. Because its decision is final ?—Yes. 51. And in the case of appeal from Court to Court, men have been compelled to drop their case through want of funds ?—Yes, and we think clause 22 of the Act of 1900 has done harm. 52. Will you explain what you mean when you say that you wish the unions to have charge in case of litigation ?—ln industrial disputes we never allow an individual to take a case before the Court. We work collectively, and then there is only one party to deal with. We support the man financially as far as we can. 53. As the practice is now, a man can fight his case individually ?—Yes. 54. And in the end the union has to come to his assistance ?—Yes. 55. The union represents the man and champions his cause before the Court ?—Yes ; but sometimes the men compromise. I am not speaking about a special society, but there have been unions who have found when they were supporting a man that he had compromised. 56. You stand behind the individual in order to defend a principle on behalf of the whole body of men ?—Yes. 57. And if a man acts individually it is possible for him to effect a compromise with the company you are fighting ?—Yes. 58. Have there been many cases of that kind ?—No ; it has not been in operation long. 59. You think it is a very unsatisfactory state of things in which a union has to fight and has to find the means to carry on a prosecution, and then finds that the individual whom they are backing has compromised ?—Yes ; for then the individual defeats all that the union has done. 60. Mr. Colvin.] Do the miners' unions on the West Coast look upon it in this light : that if a Magistrate is allowed to deal with questions of compensation there will be different decisions in different places —one decision may be given in Westport to-day and a totally different one may be given in Greymouth on the same point to-morrow ? —Yes, that is quite possible. 61. You want to have the whole thing done in one Court ?—Yes. 62. And then the decision will hold good ?—Yes ; we recognise that at present. 63. I understand that what you object to is clause 22 of the Workers' Compensation Act of 1900, which repeals several clauses ?—Yes. 64. And you want the provisions of that clause put in this Act ?—Yes ; that is what we desire. 65. Mr. Kirkbride.] I understand that you prefer that the Arbitration Court should decide these matters because of its technical knowledge, or something of that kind?— Yes; the rules which it lays down become universal, and we find that they are satisfactory. 66. Do you expect that it would be more expensive if these cases were brought before the Magistrate's Court? —Oh, yes; we think so, anyhow. 67. In a case of compensation for accident there should be no clashing; each case is decided on its own merits ? —lf the evidence is satisfactory there is no reason why the decision should be wrong. 68. Mr. Sidey.] Is yours a large union ?—Yes. 69. Have you had a meeting with regard to this question ? —Yes. 70. And you represent the views of the meeting?— Yes. 71. Mr. Ell.] With regard to Stipendiary Magistrates deciding in these cases, you think that it would be more expensive ? —Yes. 72. You say you are about twenty-five miles from the Court ?—Yes. 73. That is one objection to the Magistrate's Court being used ?—Yes. 74. Another objection is that the Arbitration Court, being familiar with such cases, would be better able to judge than a Stipendiary Magistrate?— Yes. 75. And the decisions would be more uniform because there is only one Arbitration Court for the whole of New Zealand? —Yes. 76. That Court decides all sorts of cases, and is familiar with all the conditions in the colony ' —Yes. 77. With regard to the union taking action instead of the individual, you say that the individual is barred from taking action in industrial disputes ?—Yes. 78. You think that it would be better both for the employee and the employer that the same should be done under this Workers' Compensation for Accidents Bill ?—Yes ; that the unions shall have power to decide whether a case should go before the Court or not. 79. You are not dissatisfied with the awards given by the Arbitration Court? You think that, generally speaking, they are fair ?—Yes. 80. The Chairman.] I want to make this point very clear : Although you are of opinion that the union should have the power to represent an individual, do you wish to take the whole power out of his hands as an individual ?—I think they should be in the same position as they are in regard to industrial disputes. 81. In every instance the union would review the case? —Yes. 82. And if the union considered it was not a proper case to go before a Court the individual should not be able to take it there ?—Yes; they should be in the same position as they are in industrial disputes. 83. Mr. Kirkbride.] It has been used by this deputation as an argument against cases going before the Magistrate's Court that it sits twenty-five miles off: does the Arbitration Court sit any nearer ?—No ; they both sit at the same place. Mr. William Naughton made a statement. (No. 7.) Mr. Naughton: lam president of the Wellington Trades and Labour Council. We represent the Dunedin Trades and Labour Council as well. We have gone through the Bill, and we are in