ARBITRATION ACT

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19153, 9 November 1927, Page 10

ARBITRATION ACT

THE AMENDING COMMITTEE HEARS ;PSEM "-"anWELLINGTON* v. Before (he Übow o Mr T. 0. Bishop the Employer?' FcVaihad been exchanged M». president of the South r aaU ' N Plovers' Association, in " r «,,, tl « E , f h ration » not undivided in L to the Bill. 5 att^ Mr Bishop wen; on to wished to make it dear thnf i 11 said in his evidence that h. h,d * every employer in New 2e l r „T esct M the resolutions put before ?C ° r nnttee were unanimous i B [ *5-«k-c he had expressed the opinion of the Employers' and Mr Wood's dissent did he news of the federation, Mr telegram was not sent in it should have been sent. !?ir:i fo Mr Linklatcr, witness siM some of the dairy emplovc H\ hers of the Employers' Peder, "ever attempted t^ft* expressing the views of dabv employers. • Mr J. G. Eliott, M.P. for Dm,, half of the farming community dence urging the abolition of ence to unionists clause, and 2f when the Bill was in the would move a clause abolishing h far as it affected farming interest!.? had been said that he was ttov S clause at the instigation of the Iw or. but ho had asked tho ffij* he would adopt the clause and V Minister had said that he would 1*! it to the committee. In a dispaft the employers objected to thepreW clause the Court should not have 2 to include it. It appeared to hfcfj the Employers' Federation, comc« chiefly of manufacturers and newfi was ranged with Labour for pose of defeating the aspiration, £ objects of tho farmers.

James G. Brechin, accountant cj dairy-farmer, of Pahiatua, extension of the operations of £ Arbitration Court to the dairy-faj industry, which included 4800 tumJ not counting 8000 under the GoodfelS companies He cited a resolution" this effect from Rotorua by the \i tional Dairy Association. He the conditions leading up to this & cision. Awards, were absolutely debt mental to efficiency, and the fomti cordial relations between employer ui employee had disappeared. AnvtiiM which destroyed co-operation, mustk! condemned. The failure of unionia was shown by the fact that after y ein of experience the directors of dairy companies and farmers themselves wm making an effort to remove the evil of unionism from the industry. In reply to an assertion by Mr I J. Howard that he was afraid he to an agitator, the witness replied l "No I am proud to say that I am not at agitator nor a member of Parliament." Mr Howard: You ar- opposed to trade unionism ?—ln every shape or form. You are the paid secretary of six factories, what is the difference between you and the secretary of i union!—l believe I get paid, but tin secretary of a union is a militant agitator and I am not.

Would you be insulted if I called you an agitator!—l do not think I would take it as an insult from you. To Mr Howard witness said that efficiency had not increased under awards. He represented six factories, none of which had experienced unionism for more than a few months, yet the corf of production had decreased, so that unionism had had little to do with it The real reason of reduced costs of production was in reduced costs of material.

A. S. Broadfelt, chairman of to Levin Dairy Company, aslod for «•' emption of the dairy industry from (to Act.

E. Hale, Woodvillo, dairy-fanner chairman of the Hopelands Daily Conpany, said relationships with tne mes v/ere good until last season, when were told if they wanted to hold tieif jobs they would have to join tin union. The old spirit was now > thing of the past and efficiency had been down owing to the award. Tin dairy industry should be kept out of the Arbitration Act. He waa >!*> lutely against preference to unionilti G. D. Kearney, manager of tit North Tiraumea Dairy factory, that since the award the staff had toM him on one occasion they would tas« instructions from the union and not himself. Before that he no trouble with the men. Now they had lost interest in everything the hours worked, and tney were dil' courteous to suppliers. u A. W. Grav, first assistant tl «• Hopelands Dairy Factory, endorew'W previous evidence. He' agreed tßtf the men under the award were not" efficient as formerly. , , W. Richmond, of Hastings,. w*' exporter and sheepfarmer, Mid freezing branch should be inclodea the exemptions. He agreed with Eliott's preference clause. F«ns®l btiildincr costs had increased tnrW? union awards. By making nisjj** arrangements with an efficient carp®®' ter he had built a shed for £92, pr ins award rates, when it wotm W, cost by contract £l5O. There nothing in the suggestion to fngjw the farmers by declaring their pr<*> handled by non-union men WW" Unionists were prone to stand t>y cfßcient unionists.