ARBITRATION BILL

Hokitika Guardian, 9 November 1927, Page 2

ARBITRATION BILL

(By Telegraph—Per Press Association,

WELLINGTON, Nov. 8

Before the Labour Bills Committee to-day, T. 0. Bishop, representing the Employers’ Federation, made a statement regarding telegrams which had been exchanged between Hon. G; J. Anderson and ('. DDL Wood, President of the South Canterbury Employers’ Association, in which the latter indicated the Employers’ Federation is not undivided in its attitude to the hill. Dir Bishop went on to say that ho wished to make it clear he had not said in his evidence that he represented every employer in New Zealand, or that the resolutions put hfore the Committee were unanimous. In the evidence he had expressed the considered opinion of the Employers’ I'operation, and Dir Woods’ dissent. not alter the views of ttie Federation. Mr Wood's telegram was not sent in the spirit it should have been sent. To Dir Linklater, witness said that some of the dairy employers were members of the Employers’ Federation, but he had never attempted to say he was expressing the views of the dairy factory employers. Dir Elliott, DI.P. (Oroua). on behalf of the farming community, gave evidence urging the abolition of the preference to unionists clause. He said that when the bill was in the House, he would move a clause abolishing it ns far as it affected the farming interests. It had been said that he was moving at the instigation of the Dlinister, but he had asked if the Minister would adopt the clause, and the Dlinister had said he would leave it to the Committee. In a dispute, if the employers objected to a preference clause, the Court should not have power to include it. It appeared to him that the Employers’ Federation was composed chiefly of manufacturers and merchants and was ranged with Labour for the purpose of defeating the aspirations and objects of farmers.

DIR ELLIOTT’S ALLEGATIONS. WELLINGTON, Nov. 8. An allegation that a meeting had been held recently between the Alliance of Labour and the Employers’ Federation with a view to defeating the Arbitration Amendment Bill was made by Dli- J. G. Elliott (DI.P. for Oroua) in his evidence before the Labour Rills Committee of the House of Representatives.

Dir Elliott stated that Dir Bishop, Secretary to the Federation, had stressed his opposition to the measure but not placed before the Committee the fact that the shipping and freezing companies were in favour of the amendment. “ 1 want the farmers to know,” declared Dfr Elliott, “ that last week a meeting was held between the representatives of the Alliance of Labour, and the Employers’ Federation to defeat this Bill, and it appears to me that the Employers’ Federation, which is composed principally of manufacturers and merchants, is linking up with Labour to defeat the aims, objects and aspirations of the farmers.” The Chairman (Sir John Luke) : “Do you seriously make that statement? ” DD’itness: “I do seriously make the statement that last week a committee of the Advisory Board received a deputation from the Alliance of Labour on tlie subject of the Arbitration Act Amendment. Messrs A. R. Partridge, G. DDL Morgan, J. F. Cousins, DV. Simm. H. Mainland, A. Seed, F. M.. Sanderson, F. J. Ballinger, R. M. Griffith and the Secretary, represented the Employers’ Federation, and Messrs J . Roberts, R. Semple, A. Bromley and A. Cook, the Alliance of Labour.” Dfr Walter Nash, Secretary of the N.Z. Labour Party, said it was quite time that a deputation from the Labour Conference, which bad been held last week to consider the. Arbitration Act, had waited upon tlie- Employers’ Federation, and asked that body wliat attitude it intended to take with regard to the I.C. and A. Act. This conference, said Dir Nash, might bo misinterpreted, but I am certain that there was no question of Labour ranging closely with employers for the purpose of defeating the aspirations and objects of the farmers, as alleged by Dir Elliott. Re Dir Elliott’s remarks, the Hon. Sliailer Weston. President of the N.Z. Employers’ Federation, emphatically ridiculed the irresponsible suggestion that there was any collusion between the employers and Labour to defeat the EC. and A. Bill, although he admits that the Labour Party waited on the employers to explain the action they intend to take. WELLINGTON, Nov. 8.

Before the Labour Bills Committee, taking evidence on the Arbitration and Conciliation Amendment Act, Mr S. A. Broadfelt, Chairman of the Levin Dairy Company, asked for exemption of the dairy industry from the Act. E. llalc. Wood villa, dairy farmer, and Chairman of the Hopeland Dairy Coy., said that their relationship with the men was good until the last season, when they wore told that if they wanted to hold their jobs they would have to join the Union. The old spirit was now a thing of the past, and efficiency had been broken down, owing to the Award. The dairy industry should he kept out of the Arbitration Act. He was absolutely against preference to unionists. Mr G. D. Kearney, manager of the North Tiramea Dairy Factory, said that since the award the staff had told him on one occasion they would take instructions from the Union Secretary, and not himself. Before that he had no trouble with the men ; now they had lost interest in everything except the hours worked, arid they were discourteous to suppliers. A. W. Gray, first assistant of the Hopeland Dairy Factory, endorsed the previous evidence, and agreed that the men under the award were not as efficient as formerly. W. Richmond, of Hastings, meat exporter and sheep farmer, said the freezing branch should he included in the exemption. He agreed with Air Elliott’s preference clause. Farmers’ building costs had incre; ised through the Union Awards. By making his own arrangements with an efficient carpenter, he had built a shed for £92, paying Award rates, when it would have cost by contract £l5O. There was nothing in the suggestion to frighten farmers hy declaring their produce, handled by non-union men, “ black.” Unionists were prone to stand by inefficient Unions.