TEE ONE BIG UNION

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 308, 22 September 1920, Page 8

TEE ONE BIG UNION

INTERESTING DEBATE IN THE HOUSE A LABOUR BILL AMENDED RIGHT OF ORGANISATION Early in the session an Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill was introduced by Mr. M. J. Savage (Auckland' West). The most important intended to authorise the registration of a union covering all New Zealand in any industry, trade or calling. The Bill was referred to the Labour Bills Committee, and was reported from that committee yesterday in a much modified form. The provision for national unions within the arbitration law ho.d been deleted. Mr. Howard (Christcluirch South) objected to the slaughter of the Bill by the committee. The proposals contained'in the Bill, he said, had been drafted b.fl some of the men who believed still that the arbitration law could he made a useful instrument of industrial peace. The measure as introduced had been an honest attempt, to improve the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. But' the committee, acting with the Minister of Labour, had proceeded to kill the Bill. The sole clause left in an effective form had been one providing that in certain cases wages duo to workers should ho paid to the Government'. Mr. Howard moved that the report should be .referred back to tho committee

The Minister of Labour (Sir William Hcrries) said that he had no objection to the Teport being referred back. But he would point out that he proposed to bring down several Labour Bills if he could get them drafted. Big Unions Coming. "Tho workers are willing' to organise within the arbitration law if the law moves with tlie conditions of the day," said Mr. Savage (Auckland' West). "But if the law will not move, the workers are going to organise anyhow. You have ono big union of employers and 116 exception is taken; hut immediately it becomes a question of tho unity of Labour, you hold up your hands in holy horror. The workers are going ahead with their schemes of unity. I do not think that the Government can prevent them. I hope it will not try." Mr. Parry (Auckland Central) asslired the House that craft organisation on a district basis made for industrial disorder. The natural and sound tendency of industrial organisation was towards the ono big. union, and the Labour troubles that v embarrassed the Country arose in the sectional unions. The outstanding example of the one big union was the Employers' Federation. Air. J'. P. Luke (Wellington North) .explained that a majority of the members of the committee had been opposed to the one-big-union idea. The workers in any industry could form a single big union outside the Act, but the committee di;L not think that the benefits of the arbitration law should be conferred upon such organisations. The rank and file of tho workers were not behind tho one-big-union idea. Mr. Parry: Have you any ovidenco of that?

Mr. Luke: "There is evidonco every day. The leaders of the Labour movement nre not carrying the rank nnd file of tho workers with them." lie was satisfied that t.lio_ creation of big unions would not be in thb public interest and would not promote industrial peace. The Bill had received a fair run. from the committee, and no good purpose would bo servod by referring it back.

Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Avon) thought that tho action of the committee had been "stupid and devoid c{ intelligence." The people who were anxious to build up (lie one-big-union were not n bit interested in the Bill, which had been drafted by men who wanted to uphold the arbitration law. lie felt that if tho workers wanted to organise on national lines, they had a right to do so. But the Bill was intended to strengthen the arbitration law, not to weaken it. It had been framed to provide for quick and uniform decisions by the Arbitration Court in industrial disputes. The Trade Union Act. provided full power for any set of workers to organise on a national basis oulside the arbitration law. The committer had struck a blow nt the Arbitration Act. Employers' Federation. Tho only instanco of "pne big union" in the country was the Employers' Federation, said Mr, H. E. Holland (Buller). Tho Employers' Federation fought all Labour moves through the agency of a man who was really a "paid agitator" in its interests. What was needed in the Labour movement of New Zealand today was a linking-up of industrial organisations. Tho reason for which tho workers were at present, at the mercy of the employers' ono biff union was that they had failed to organise as the employers had organised. Mr. Holland claimed that proof of the need for such organisation as he had suggested was afforded by the treatment that tho sugar company had meted out to a number of its employees.

nil'} uuu ii 11KIU iu im ami mil- aam was intended to strengthen the arbitration law, not to weaken it. It had been framed to provide for quick and uniform decisions by the Arbitration Court in industrial disputes. The Trade Union Act. provided full power for any set of workers to organise on a national basis oulside the arbitration law. The committer had struck a blow nt the Arbitration Act. Employers' Federation. Tho only instanco of "one big union" in the country was the Employers' Federation, said Mr, H. E. Holland (Buller). ( Tho Employers' Federation fought all . Labour moves through the agency of a mail who was really a "paid agitator" in its Interests. What was needed in tlie Labour movement of New Zealand today was a linking-up of industrial organisations. Tho reason for which tho workers wero at present, at the mercy of the employers' ono biff union was that they had failed to organise as the employers had organised. Mr. Holland claimed that proof of the need for such organisation as he had suggested was afforded by the treatment that tho sugar company had meted out to a number of its employees. Mr. W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne) said that ; if the Labour organisations could come with clean hands and declare that they 1 had obeyed the requirements of the present Act they would have a better case. Tli» present) proposal of tho Labour Party was simply one to compel the . workers to follow the Labour leaders. Power to "drag the unions in" was what was sought. It would bo unwise for the House to try and force such a Bill , upon the workers, to whom voluntary ' Dominion-wido organisation in any in- ' dnstry was at present open. Mr. W. A. Veitch (Wanganui) said : there, was no suggestion of compulsion at all. He contended that it should bo ' made possible for a Dominion organisation in an industry to obtain a Domin- | ion award from the Arbitration Court. ' This would obviate the duplication of J work that was at present going on in ' the Court. If the workers were not given the power to have Dominion or- f ganisations under the Arbitration Act, thev would be driven to form an organisation outside the Court. Mr. Veitch complained of delay in dealing with Arbitration Court business. Ho knew of a union which had never been on strike, and which had been waiting for nine months to havo its case Vard. On the other hand, when a certain union went on strike it v got a special sitting of thn Court to hettV its dispute. Mr. J. WCombs (Lyttelron) said it was impossible under tho Arbitration Act to compel the workers tc- organise as the member for Gisborne had suggested. The Trade Union Act and the Labour Disputes Investigation Act both provided for Dominion organisation by the workers in any industry, and for Dominion I settlement of disputes. Thel.C. and A. 1 Act, on the other hand, provided for the I making of separate awards in separate J localities, arid the nrocess entailed irri- ' tating repetition and delay, while all the 1 time tho Court intended to mako the j conditions in, a particular industry uni- ' form throughout the country. The clause t 6truck out by the committee merely pro- ; vided for the registration under the T.O. and A. Act of n Dominion organisation f in any one industry. Jt did not proprse ] at all tbe formation of "one big union." ! The ccmmitt'ee had evidently been in a j remarkable state of nerves to do what it ' had dono to the Bill. j Menace of Revolution, | Mr. J. A. Young (Waikato) said that i the motive behind the desire to form f ono big union was the wish to bring 1 about a revolution. Ho read from tho « "JJaoriland Worker" articles advocating I the promotion of revolution through the ® means of such a union. One passago t quoted urged that ail endeavour should 1 be made to achieve a revolution in thought that would lead lo a revolution in action.. Another, advocated tho use I of force to bring about the desired change * ill the social order. Mr. P. Fraser (Wellington Central) as- * eerfed that the "Maorihuul Worker" was [ not the official organ of Labour. Tho issues quoted from represented nothing more than tho "rather confused views of tho lato temporary occupant of the editorial chair, who had no Arm grip of Labour principles." He could not compliment the committee on its panic- t stricken attitude towards the Bill. It v the workers could net. organise as they desired under the Act, they would organise outside the Act. TJio committeo E had danoed to the tuns piayed by the I

Employers' Federation through its secretary. The statement Hint there wis no compulsion in the Bill was not correct, said Mr. D. .Tones (JCaiapoi). Tho system of preference to unionists would have the effect of compelling the workers to join 'ft union that might be started by only a small section. The Labour members —"the Pharisees of the House"—were doing their best to hamper industry find throw dust into tho machinery in order to compass tho destruction cf the wage system. The workers themselves did not dc-sil-e the abolition of that system. It was tho bringing of the foreign clement into New Zealand Labour disputes that had been the cause of trouble. If the employers had had the New Zealand working men themselves to deal with thero would not have been the trouble that there had been., Thero would covie a <lny when the workers would realise that 'the leaders who were professing to help them were actually working against their interests. It was decided upon the voices that the Bill should ba referred back to tho committee. SERIOUS "ACCUSATIONS AGAINST WELLINGTON DETECTIVES. Grave charges against two members of the detective in Wellington were made in a petition presented to the House yesterday by Mr. J. P. Luke (Wellington' North) on behalf of Matthew Livingstone. Petitioner alleged that in the month of August he was the victim of a conspiracy by two detectives, who charged him with'serious offences, of which the Court subsequently acquitted him. "The detectives," the petition stated, "by means of threats, persuaded a young girl to sign a statement respecting tlie alleged offences, which statement Was concocted by tho detectives, and was utterly false." Livingstone asked the Houee to decree that an exhaustive and independent inquiry should be instituted into the matters 'mentioned in the petition. TE AROHTLEASES COMMITTEE'S REPORT PRESENTED. The report of the Lands Committee on the Te Aroha Crcvn Leases Bill, after being threo times blocked by leasehold members, wero placed on the .table of the House of .Representatives yesterday. An amendment moved by Mr. Parry (Auckland Central) proposing that the Bill should be referred back to the committee was defeated on the voices, The leasehold members apparently had decided not to press their objections further at that stage. The committee's report recommended that tho Bill- should be allowed to proceed. PUBLIC WORKS"STATEMENT ! MR. MASSEY'S LITTLE*WARNING. Mr. G. AVitty (Ricenrton) asked in tho House of Representatives when tho Public AVorks Statement would bo placed before tho House. < Mr. Maesey's reply suggested an opinion that the House was not making much progress with the. business of tho session. "Judging by present appearr.nces," said the Prime Minister, "tho Public Works Statement will be laid before Parliament in about six weeks." LOCAL BY-ELECTIONS Two suggestions relating to vacancies on municipal bodies were made in the House of Representatives last night by Mr. R. A. Wright (Wellington Suburbs). Tho first was that when a member of such a body resigned ho should have power to' withdraw his' resignation within a certain period. Under tho present law, said Mr. Wright, the resignation could not bo withdrawn. The second suggestion was that casual vacancies should not be filled. Municipal by-elec-tions did not provide a test of public opinion; sine© tho great majority of tlio olectors did not go to tho poll. \