STRONG PROTEST. ARBITRATION COURT JUDGE CRITICISED.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXI, Issue 90, 18 April 1911, Page 3

STRONG PROTEST. ARBITRATION COURT JUDGE CRITICISED.

ACTION BY LABOUR CONFERENCE. fBX TELEGHAPH — PEESS ASSOCIATION.! CHRISTCHURCH. 17th April. " That the conference disagree with the actions of Judge Sim, and recommend that he be removed from his position.'' was a remit from the Auckland Trades and Labour Council, moved at to-day's sitting 'of the Trades and Labour Councils Federation of Labour Conference By Mr. H. L. Horning (Auckland). Mr. Horning said that there was a Jargo number of reasons in support of the contention that Mr. Justice Sim should lie removed. There was the addendum to the Waterside Workers' Award, some year* ago. It was a most unjust one, and was sufficient alone to remove him. Since then he had added the strike clause, which lie (the speaker) considered was altogether wrong. The Judge ought not to be allowed to put strike clauses in awards. The employers told the unions that they would give them the present award, and if they wanted any concessions, they would have to go to the court for them. It seemed evident that the employers had got hold of the court somehow, and that was so. not only once, but in every case. Mr. IT. J. Kemp (Auckland) seconded the motion. POWERS OF THE COURT. Mr. G. R. Whiting (Canterbury) moved as an amendment: — " That the executive of this "federation make representations to the Government by way -of a strong protest against recent decisions in industrial disputes by the president of the Arbitration Court, Mr. Justice Sim." The mover said he felt that the remit on the agenda paper, if carried, would not have the effect the movers thought it- would have. If the amendment were agreed to, it would give the executive time to consider the decisions given. * and have them tested. He questioned whether the court had power to make the strike clause. If it did possess that power, itwas time that its powers were restricted. A lengthy discussion on the matter would not help them. Mr. W. Bate (Wifterside Workers) seconded the amendment. Mr. W. T. Young (Wellington) admitted that. the amendment was better than the remit. His council had considered the remit very hurriedly. Otherwise his instructions might have been different. The position in regard to the court was this : If a person committed an error, he paid the penalty, but did not pay two penalties for the one offence, but the trades unionist who went on strike had two penalties imposed on him. There was the statutory penalty, and there was the court's strike clause, depriving members of the union 011 strike of all the benefits of the award. It. was a unique position, and he submitted that the court, in inserting the strike clause in awards, was placing the worker of New Zealand beneath the common criminal, besides striking at the manliness and unionistic principles of the workers. He questioned if . the court bad jurisdiction to insert such a clause, and he believed that the clause could be successfully challenged. He ventured the opinion that, if ever the court attempted to impose the clause on a certain organisation, it would immediately challenge the court's jurisdiction. The restrictions placed on unions in recent awards, such as those in the Farm Labourers, Shearers, and the Woolshed Hands had been imposed out of pure and cold-blooded cussedness. Mr. Laracy (Canterbury)' contended that an injury done to one union should bo considered as an injury to all, and if a weak union had been hit by the strike clause, they had overlooked their duty in not assisting it. Mr. D. M'Laren, M.P. (Wellington), pointed out that the farm labourers got financial and other support from the unions throughout the Dominion. When the strike clause was first inserted in an awprd he took legal opinion, and one 'of the best jurists in the Dominion expressed the opinion that it was ultra vires, but added that the Legislature had set up a court which could only be questioned by itself. In view of this, he instructed his union to strike out the strike clause, and to nrint its award without it. The federation would be doing the right thing to get a declaratory judgment on the question of the court's jurisdiction in respect to the strike clause, and it should also make representations that the court must absolutely be put in its own place, and the President given to understand that his function was to settle industrial disputes, and not to legislate for the country. GENERAL DISSATISFACTION. - Mr. R. Breen (Otago) said he was satisfied in his own mind that- from Auckland to the Bluff there was general dissatisfaction with the decisions of Mr. Justice Sim. He referred to the intances of alleged inconsistent decisions forwarded by the Otago Council to the Minister, and added that the representations of the of the federation, ■would back up the Otago Council's representations. There was necessity for the introduction of drastic legislation to prevent the recurrence of such inconsistencies. If the federation concentrated its energy on the political aspect of affairs, it would have proper representation on the court. If it had a party in the House, it would have the j right judges and fair decisions. Mr. E. J. Howard (Canterbury) twitted several members with having changed their views regarding Mr. Justice Sim since 1908. Mr. E. J. Carey (Wellington) said that the discussion had not been elevating. They had been blaming Ma-. Justice Sim, but if they had been straightforward they would have blamed themselves. The fault was their own. and the Legislature's. Let them look at the Arbitration /Act, and they would see that it gave the President wonderful powers. It was necessary that these powers should be circumscribed, and when a union went to the court for an award, it should be made on certain principles, such as a living wage, the increasing price of commodities, and the legislation already in operation. No judge of the court had given satisfaction, and on the removal of -each judge ihey had got a worse one. COMPENSATION CASE. The chairman (Mr. M. J. Reardon, Wellington), said he had been twitted regarding hia remark, in 1908, that Mr. Justice Sim was one of the ablest jurists in the Dominion, and he still held that opinion in respect to the subject that ' was under discussion at that time, the question whether compensation cases should be heard by a jury. Mr. Carey : "He has given general satisfaction in compensation cases." Continuing. Mr. R-eardon said that he did not intend to apologise for hie instructions from the Wellington Council. If at couQd be established (and he thought it could) that the judge was not impartial, thexe was nothing else to do but apply for his removal. What had made the law a by-word in America? Was it not that judges had been "got at"? He did not say that-the judge of the Arbitration Court Lad been "got at," 1 but he thought it could be established that his judgments were not impartial. The workers did not believe that he .was

impartial, and whilst he remained on the Bench it was almost impossible for them to erpect the workers of Xew Zaland to be satisfied. The amendment \was agreed to, Messrs. Horning. Kemp, and Carey only voting against it.