PARLIAMENT AND THE COMMISSIONERS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1848, 6 September 1913, Page 6

PARLIAMENT AND THE COMMISSIONERS.

third parties, was not to bo subject to J interpretation by the Court, as Mr. Barr * had suggested. The debate had abso- ' lutely convinced him that he was wrong in the first place, and that the view of ! tlio House or Representatives was right, j The motion was carried after a divi- J sion by 16 votes to 13. J METHODIST UNION. j The Methodist Union Bill (tho Hon. H. D. Bell) was committed and reported with one amendment. ( f PENSIONS BILL. K The Hon. H. D. BELL moved the i second reading of the Pensions Bill, < r _ which, he said, was the clearest piece of i legislation on pensions or any cognate t subject that had been presented to tho i New Zealand Parliament in recent years. i He explained in detail the provisions of ' the Bill, noting t'ho principal changes r which it proposed to make in the'law. - I The debate \Vas adjourned on the mo- a tion of the Hon. G. Jones, and the Co'un- a cil rose at 4.55 p.m. t

The Legislative Council sat at 2.30 t * ,m ' j The Wellington City Empowering j [Amendment Bill was received from tho j ■House of Representatives, and read a 1 ,first time. ARBITRATION LAW. 'AWARDS AND AGREEMENTS.' ] The first order of the day was con- 1 sideration of the following reasons of the House of Representatives for disagreeing with tho amendments made by ' the Legislative Council in the Industrial f fConciliation and' Arbitration Amend- < iment Bill: "That tho amendments made ] by the Legislative Council in tho In- . Vlustrial. Conciliation and Arbitration ] Amendment Bill are not in accordance ] with the principlo of the Bill, as agreed I to by the House of Representatives." i Tho Hoii. H. D. BELL moved that Hhe Council does not insist upon its I (amendments. The Act of 1911 made a < provision which had caused the difficulty which tho Bill sought to remedy. [iThere wero two forms of document or [process by which industrial disputes •might bo settled —an award of the Court, and an industrial, agreement duly 'executed and'filed by the parties'.' The agreoment was binding on the parties only who had executed it, but the iaward had. a wider application,' embracing all persons engaged in tho industry. , It was a judgment in rem. The [.'Act of 1911 provided that 'where a Court of Conciliation had sat for tho t .purpose of arriving at an. arrangement between parties to the dispute, and the , .parties 'represented at the hearing came -j |to a complete agreement, ( bnendations of tho Council should bo ■) '(embodied iri a document binding those . ' who had accepted the recommendations. •It was obvious that in somo way tho j dispute having been settled, tho. rocom- ] Biendations must be, in some enforce- f able form, recorded somewhere. This j the Act of 1911 attompted to provide, j When tho Act of 1911 was brought be- ( lore the House it provided that the \ recommendations should bo registered, i and bo enforceable ivs "an industrial t agreement duly executed and filed by tho t parties." In tho course of the passage of tho Bill it was suggested to the -Minister'(Mr. Millar) that the recommendations should have the wider force [ of an award, and the word "awdftl" \f"aa £ inserted in the clause, instead of jtlie j word "agreement." Tho Court 'had pointed out that there was no sucli tiling 1 as "an award duly executed and filed by tho parties," and that the clause , was therefore nugatory. The House j this session amended.-Che Bill by reinserting the words "Industrial agree- , ment," instead of "award." Tile Coun- ' cil had made somo amendments intended to havo tho effect of giving to tho recommendations tho wider effect of an award of the Court. The President of tho Court had since pointed out that ' if this were passed lie would 'be asked to enforce as an award of his Court 1 documents which were drawn up by ' jieople. who were merely interested' in ' settling the dispute, and drawn up with- ! out any of the detail which tho Court 1 always insisted upon, should be put. into J an award to make sure that it should ' be enforceable. It seemed to Win (Mr. ' Bell) that this was a reasonable objec- 1 tion on tho part'of the"" Court, and he 1 was now satisfied .that the view taken < fcy the House was the correct one. 1 A Complex Question. Tho Hon. J. E. JENKINSON thought • the Council should insist upon its- ; amendments, and sand t'iie iiill to a conference of both Houses. •It would be good pojicy to give all the force pos- ' bible to agreements arrived at by Conciliation councils, for he believed this would.make tor industrial psace more strongly than tho leaving of the settlement of all disputes to the Court of Arbitration. Ho would liko to seo inuustrial agreements, pronaed they 1 wore entered into by a majority of the pcopfo. concerned in an industry, made landing on other persons in the same industry.. The Hon. J. BAR It said ho believed the course, suggested by Mr. 1 Jenkinson was the wisest possible under the circumstances. Tuo. matter, ho said, was of supreme importance to Labour unions. He had always been a supporter; of Judge Sinv, but' lie did not ' think Judge bun was very anxious to assist the conciliation process. Ho preferred to have disputes settled in his Court. The Hon. W. EARNSHAW said ho had always held that tho Judge of the Arbitration Court would not accept the amendments made in the Bill by the Council. He had -no objection to a conference, or to any steps which?wou!d assist the process of conciliation in tho settlement of disputes. The Hon. 0. bAMUEL argued that 1 tho proper word to uso ill the clause was industrial agreement, and that tho Council should give way. Then it would bo still another question as to whether an industrial agreement should be made in every case to have tho effect of an award. This was not the right Bill in which to make such a provision. The Hon. - ;J. T. PAUL said that if tho Council believed in conciliation they should givo the process frco course, untrammelled by anything else". It was idle to say that the matter could be considered when the consolidating Bill came down later, bccauso that Bill would assuredly be rushed. He thought there ought to bo a conference, and ho did not think too much .weight should bo attached by the Legislature to the objection of a Judge whose duty it was to interpret tho will of tho Legislature. Cone Too Far. Tho Hon: C. M. LUKE said that on tho Committee tho whole meaning of what the Committee had done did not dawn uppn him. Employers for tho most part wero opposed to the Council's proposal. They were afraid that to give a recommendation the force of an.award and to make it binding on other persons not originally parties to it might give riso to injustice. He thought that, all. things considered, it would bo wiser to leave tho whole matter, to bo settled when the consolidating Bill came down 1S Tho Hon.'W. BEEHAN urged that there ought to be a conference. Tho Hon. H. D. BELL said ho would not oppose tho conference if the issuo were a wider one. there was no halfway house, no possibility of compromise It would bo an impossible posi- ■ tion if • a document that em-. IxKlied an agreement and wa3 to bo put upon the file of a Court and become enforceable against