JUDGE AND ARBITRATORS

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 181, 21 October 1927, Page 13

JUDGE AND ARBITRATORS

New Step in Industrial Laws ALL FARM WORKERS EXCLUDED Labour Promises a Stormy Passage (THE S.WS-S Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, Thursday. ALTHOUGH the Minister of Labour, the Hon. G. J. Anderson, described the amendments to the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act as a simple Bill its introduction into the House of Representatives this evening caused the biggest outcry from the Labour Party that has been heard this session, and if to night's debate is an indication the measure is likely to have a stormy passage through the Assembly. ' • The constitution of the Arbitration Court is altered so as to have representatives of industries involved in disputes sitting with the Judge instead of the present permanent nominated members, and the farming industry is exempted from provision of the Act altogether. It is laid down that in future there should be no provision in any award prohibiting employment under piecework rates, or in any manner calculated to secure payment by results.

ATR. ANDERSON explained that the constitution of tlie Court had been altered, but not in the manner that had been suggested. The present Judge is to remain and, except for the settlement of industrial disputes, is to exercise jurisdiction alone.

On industrial disputes two arbitrators from the industry affected, one from the employers and ofie from the employees, are to sit with the Judge. If it is necessary to sit in more than one place on the same dispute, the Judge is to sit alone in all but the principal centre, and evidence will be taken and communicated to the arbitrators for a decision to be arrived at after consultation in the chief district affected in the dispute. No alteration is to be made in the Conciliation Council.

The present nominated members of the Court are to vacate their seats as soon as disputes now being considered are concluded, and compensation will be paid for their loss of office. The farming industry is exempted as well as dairy factories. Mr. Anderson went on to say that no provision could be made in any award preventing piecework or system of payment by results. The Court might make these provisions but, notwithstanding their absence from the award, employers and workers may agree upon a payment on piecework rates or according to work done, provided that the rate of pay did not go below that fixed in the aw r ard, by which parties otherwise would be bound. Mr. Anderson said that the assessors in any dispute must have been employed in the industry involved during the previous 12 months. If any employer dismissed a man within six

Mr. W. A. Veitcli suggested that the Labour Bills Committee be given power to sit during the recess so that a deliberate and considered report upon the whole question could be prepared for deliberation by Parliament next session.

Mr. R. McKeen, Wellington South, declared that in the system proposed in this Bill there was no conciliation and no arbitration. It affected 100,000 workers under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and the 395 trade unions registered under it. He questioned whether the assessors, as proposed, were as qualified as the present representatives of workers and employers in accurately representing their respective interests. If matters were placed into the hands of employers, workers, generally speaking, would not be treated decently. “We placed these laws on the Statute Book because of the unscrupulous employer,” he said, “and now we are giving him a way out. It is unjust and unfair.” Mr. W. D. Lysuar, Gisborne, considered that the questions in the Bill were simple and -would not require a great deal of consideration before the committee. He advised Labour to be content to take its gruelling. “Why Squeak?” Mr. H. L. Tapley, Dunedin North, suggested that there was no use in discussing the Bill before they knew what was in it. It might contain provisions absolutely palatable to the Labour Party. Why squeak before they were hurt? Voices from Labour Benches: Why are you squeaking? Mr. H. T. Armstrong, Christchurch East: Some of us were awake when the Minister was making his explanation, and we are quite satisfied that there is nothing in this Bill that is palatable. We are quite prepared to spend a considerable amount of time in preventing it from becoming law. The Minister’s Bill had struck a death blow at arbitration. Mr. J. McCombs, Lyttelton, gathered that, with his wide experience of Labour matters, the Minister did not. fully approve of some of the clauses which Mr. McCombs suggested had been forced into the Bill by the wild and woolly extremists in the Reform Party. Mr. E. J. Howard, Christchurch South, advanced the view that the Government had been commanded by its bosses outside the House to bring about an alteration of the system. Mr. P. Fraser, Wellington Central, suggested that the Bill should be read a second time pro-forma, and referred to the Labour Bills Committee, so that members could hear all sides of the question before having a full-dress discussion in the House. The Minister made no move to reply, which prompted the Leader of the Opposition to press for an answer to the questions which had been asked. Mr. Anderson said that he would take the second reading debate before the Bill was referred to the Labour Bills Committee, and when the Bill was before the committee he certainly would not stand any stonewalling, though reasonable time would be allowed for evidence. “I think we have had a very nice talk about it,” said Mr. Anderson. Mr. Savage: It is nothing to what you will have.