13

I.—9a.

J. THORN.

of the Council, and they jointly considered the Bill with the object of coming to some decision for the consideration of the Council or otherwise. The Parliamentary Committee and the executive sat on two evenings and exhaustively discussed the measure, and the two committees appointed me to draft a manifesto embodying the decisions for presentation to the Council, and at the meeting of our Council, attended by seventy-five or eighty delegates—there being forty or forty-five unions affiliated —the manifesto was approved as submitted by a majority of thirty or thereabouts. I think there were only about sixteen votes recorded against the manifesto. Mr. Young and Mr. Westbrooke, as I said, have practically used all the arguments adduced by us, and I ask. to be permitted to put a copy of our manifesto in. 1 will also supply a copy to the members of the House of Representatives and the Legislative Council. In connection with the proposed Industrial Councils, we are of opinion that this consideration ought to weigh with the Labour Bills Committee, that in a very large number of our unions—and I have had some association with a great many of them—l find that there is a very great lack of leaders, a very great lack of men with intelligence and intellectual development enough to enable them to meet their employers in conference will win. It appears to us that in the Industrial Council all that each side has to do is to convince the Chairman, and the side that can put its case forward in the best way will, in consequence, appeal to the Chairman, and, of course, affect his decision. I know this: that in the Slaughtermen's Assistants' Union, in the Manure Hands' Union, and in practically the whole of the meat trades and in the Farm Labourers' Union you will not find men who can sit with their employers and hold their own, because the employers' weight and influence will counteract theirs in the eye of the Chairman. That is the position. I can bring cases to show that unions in the meat trade that have conferred with their employers have got considerably worse conditions through the agreement than the Court has awarded in the same line of industry. As an instance, take the manure hands: The Court in Gisborne made an award by which the manure hands there got Bs. a day. That was Is. rise. The other men connected with them got 7s. 6d. a day, and that was 6d. a day rise. I was conducting the case of the manure hands in Christchurch when, just in the middle of the case, the employers brought in an agreement which had been arrived at with the men in South Canterbury within a week or two of the Gisborne award, and in the agreement provision was made for lOJd. per hour and the same conditions that they had been working under. The President of the Court told me as plainly as language could speak that he would have granted the Gisborne award, which meant Is. rise to some of the men and 6d. to others, but in consequence of the South Canterbury agreement the Court awarded the same to the North Canterbury men. I used some strong language about it, but what can one do? That is just one of the arguments that ought to be taken into consideration by this Labour Bills Committee; the others have been touched upon very fully by Mr. Westbrooke and Mr. Young. One of these is that the men have to run the risk of intimidation. This intimidation is a fact—l know it. I have been connected with the Farm Labourers' Union for the last four months, and 1 found this—if statements of men can be relied upon at all—-that one of the greatest difficulties we have to meet in the organization of these farm labourers is the wholesale intimidation which the men have to put up with from the employers. You had Mr. Kennedy, of the Farm Labourers' .Union, giving evidence before this Committee the other day, and I see this matter cropped up in connection with the Agricultural Labourers' Accommodation Bill, and I know it to be a wellknown fact. There is a man named , who listened to Mr. Ell delivering an address at Ashburton on behalf of the Farm Labourers' Union and joined the union there. I had some correspondence with him, and considered he was a very good man. I suggested that he should take a book of tickets and obtain members in the Ashburton district. He got thirty-two members in five days, and on the sixth day he got a week's notice. Of course, I could not prove this in a Court of law, but I intuitively felt that that man got the sack through taking an active part in union matters, and I know lam right in stating that. Take another case: A man named was working for Mr. , who is well known to all here, although he was not directly responsible for the dismissal. The Taitapu Branch of the union had a meeting, and passed some pretty stiff resolutions about certain things. These resolutions were published in the newspaper, and within three days Mr. got a week's notice. Take the case of the Livery-stablemen's Union: I subpoenaed two witnesses. I knew a bit about these men's business, and in examining the witnesses I got just what I wanted. One of them had been in the employ-of for ten years, and was foreman of one of his branch stables. The case began on a Friday, and concluded on the Saturday morning, and on the following Monday the man got the sack before the case was adjudicated upon. Another man gave similar evidence, and on Monday morning he also got the sack. Of course, we cannot prove these things in a Court of law, but they are facts all the same. There is another case, that of the meat-preservers, a union formed about six months back. Most of the members work in Islington—there may be five or six at Belfast. Mr. Hatton was president of the union. He was not president of the union very long. He got the sack, although he was a competent man in the line of work for which he was employed. He got the sack, and has been roaming about Christchurch ever since, and cannot get work. Mr. Kennedy, organizer of the Farm Labourers' Union, has been sacked time and time again. The thing is going along in a wholesale way, and everybody knows it, and the sooner the members of this Labour Bills Committee get to know it the sooner they will be able to deal with the trade-union movement. These things ought to be taken into consideration when members of this Committee propose to adopt the Industrial Councils in place of the present Conciliation Boards. I might state here that when the Hon. Mr. Millar made a statement that the Christchurch bootmakers had passed a resolution approving of the Bill, I thought it just as well to get the facts. I wired to the Christchurch Union, and the Bootmakers' Federal Council replied, " Bootmakers' Federation condemn Arbitration Bill.— Whiting." Here is another telegram I got from the treasurer of the Bootmakers' Union and secretary of the Trades and Labour Council: " Union not dealt with Bill.