LABOUR OFFICE

Hokitika Guardian, 12 March 1929, Page 5

LABOUR OFFICE

- 43rd. SESSION OPENS. v British Official Wireless.) (Received this day at noon.) RUGBY, March 11. The governing body of the International Labour Office.opened its 43rd session at Geneva this morning. For the first time these Labour Ministers were present: Sir Arthur Steel-Mait-laml Great Britain), Louchur (France) and AVissell (Germany), and the main subject of discussion was the Washing, ton Eight Hours Convention. Sir Steel-Maitland, in referring to tho British attitude, said Great Britain find always favoured the principles of the Convention, but pointed out that it contained a number of important points that deserved clarification and reconsideration. He proceeded to deal with these points in detail. FURTHER PARTICULARS. RUGBY, March 11. Addressing the governing body olf tho International Labour Office at Geneva regarding Great Britain’s attitrnle towards the Washington Eight Hours Convention, Sir Arthur Steel .Maitland, British Labour Minister, said Great Britain had always favoured the principles of the Convention both in principle and in practice. Great Britain’ industries, with very few exceptions, already conformed in actual practice with the principles of the Washington Convention, hut ho would explain why Great Britain hesitated to ratify the Convention and why he asked 'for a revision of the Convention. Ambiguity in International law might have a very different effect from ambiguity in an International Convention. If there was ambiguity in an International Convention it was open to each nation ratifying it to interpret it as it thought- right. It became clear to all who had studied the text of the Washington Convention deeply, that there were important points which deserved reconsideration owing to the general uncertainty of their interpretation. What for example, he said, was the actual interpretation to he put upon the phrase “hours rtf working?” How was intermittent work to be defined? What exactly wore the limits of overtime, ajs applied to railway workers. Articles 1 and 2, the whole object ot which was the regulation of hours of work, never told them what the hours of work were. Another question, somewhat allied to this, was what did the Convention mean bv the word “week?” Was Sunday excluded or did it meiitii the ordinary calendar week of seven days? Further provisions governing the distribution of the 48 hours normal working week appeared unnecessarily restrictive*. Should it be permissible to distribute these normal working hours, provided they did not exceed 48 hours in a week over five or even lour days. • Having dealt with various other points. Sir A. Steel Maitland said il the-v bad amended the Convention; in which the difficulties be bad mentioned wore satisfactorily settled, he would recommend his Government to ratify it, and lm was sure they would consent.