ARBITRATION BILL

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20491, 9 March 1932, Page 10

ARBITRATION BILL

LABOUR HOSTILITY. VIEWS STATED TO GOVERNMENT. [Feom Our Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, March 8. Not for many years has a piece of legislation been so closely watched in Parliamentary circles as the Arbitration Bill, which had a stormy passage through its initial stages in the House of Representatives last week, and upon which the Government is now hearing the evidence of those parties directly concerned. Yielding to pressure from within his own Party, from Opposition members of the House, and from interests outside, the Prime Minister agreed to meot representative delegations from workers and employers' organisations to-day, so that criticism of the Bill's provisions could be well ventilated before the measure was proceeded with in Parliament. The Minister for Labour, the Hon. A. Hamilton, was present with Mr Forbes when the delegates from the workers placed their case this afternoon. It was' no surprise to learn that the proceedings, which were private, were exceedingly frank in the exchange of viewpoints upon the vital clauses of the Bill, to which the workers' representatives displayed uncompromising hostility. The- conference lasted three hours, and the time was only sufficient to hear the workers' side of the case. It is intended that tho employers' viewpoint shall be advanced before the Ministers to-morrow, when both sides will again be present. Mr Forbes had nothing to report from the discussions this evening, merely stating that they would be resumed to-morrow. I Coalition Caucus. The Bill was freely discussed at a combined caucus earlier in the day, when the Prime Minister presided over a body of members who by no means agreed that the measure in its present form is tho most desirable method of handling the problem of the Court. While agreeing that the restrictions press heavily on industry, many mem-, bers are diffident about accepting the clause which Empowers the Government to exempt a specific industry by Order-in-Council, and the provision insisting on unanimity before an appeal can be made to the Court. Although Mr Forbes declared that the caucus was quite happy, individual members make little secret of their disapproval of what they believe is the virtual destruction "of the Court. Mr Forbes, on the other hand, is clearly disinclined to make major alterations. He says he will accept reasonable amendments, but reiterates the determination of the Government to pass legislation introducing compulsory conciliation and voluntary arbitration. OPINION OF MASTER BUILDERS. f PRINCIPLE OF ARBITRATION. Although no action was taken, members of the Canterbury Builders' Association expressed the opinion last night, after hearing extracts from the Arbitration Amendment Bill, that the principle of arbitration in the settlement of industrial disputes should not be interfered with. The president (Mr It. C. Jamieson) said _ that employers throughout the Dominion did not wish to depart from the existing methods of arbitration. Mr W. H. Winsor said that there must be some final arbiter, otherwise there would be long drawn out conciliation proceedings. It seemed that the "Conciliation Council" was not the proper term. An "Industrial Settlement Court" would bo better. The term "compulsory conciliation" was contradictory. "Wo builders should nob lose sight of tho value of the principle of arbitration," added Mr Winsor. Mr Jamioson said that there would havo to be drastic alterations in the Bill beforo it went through. Mr G. Simpson: What about another little commission?