FARMERS’ PRESIDENT ON ARBITRATION ACT

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 192, 3 November 1927, Page 11

FARMERS’ PRESIDENT ON ARBITRATION ACT

THREE JUDGES PREFERRED PREFERENCE TO UNIONISTS Press Association. WELLINGTON, To-day. Before the Labour Bills Committee, the hearing of the 'evidence with regard to the Arbitration Act Amendment, Mr. W. J. Poison, representing the Farmers’ Union, said that although his organisation approved of the Bill generally, there were points that it did not approve of. It would prefer one Judge alone or three Judges, preferably the latter—assessors were invariably violently partisan—subject to re-election every three years. It seemed that the principle of replacing men who did not give agreeable judgments at the end of their term was subversive to British justice. The court already admitted of the provision of experts when necessary, so that three judges would be a suitable arrangement. They were not seeking the abolition of preference to unionists, which, he considered desirable, but'if there were preference there should be no striking. He asked that preference should automatically cease where any union had committed a breach of the law in disputes in which the farmers were substantially concerned. They should be permitted to appear as a body at court. The shearing industry affected the farmers t© only a trifling extent as compared with the effect of all awards in which they were interested. The chairman: You condemn the exemption of the farmers’ industry, including shearing and freezing? DAIRY WORKERS’ VIEW Mr. J. P. John, representing the Auckland Dairy Workers’ Union, lay stress on the conditions under which dairy workers earned their living, and said there should be some limitation of hours. The employers and the union in his district worked harmoniously. To bring in the Bill would be to bring in strikes, which at present were absent, and to break down the industry and cause a falling off in quality. The fear of the men was that, if they were cut out of the Act, wages would fall, and the good team work now being done by good and well-paid men would suffer. Mr. R. Fulton, representing the Taranaki dairy workers, said the Bill was in the interests of neither workers nor farmers. He quoted from the balance sheets of seven factories to show the general reduction in the cost of production since, the coming into operation of Arbitration Court awards. CONFIDENCE IN SCHEME EXEMPTION UNSOUND “SELLING FARMERS A PUP”, Press Association. WELLINGTON. To-day. New Zealand Employers’ Federation delegates from all sections yesterday considered the Arbitration Amendment Act It was agreed that some form of arbitration was a necessary feature of collective bargaining. Its success must depend upon the goodwill*and loyalty of both employers and workers to the system, and this could be secured only while both employers and workers had confidence in it. The present arbitration system had won the confidence of the majority of employers and workers. Any amendment should be designed to increase this confidence. It was essential that the utmost care should be taken to avoid anything likely to endanger this confidence. Anything in the nature of party or class legislation should be absolutely ruled out. The meeting examined most carefully seven different new constitutions, but came to the unanimous conclusion that none ■was an improvement or even as good as the present constitution. ONLY ALTERATION The only alteration suggested is that the term of office of nominated members be extended from three to five years. As to the exemptions of industries it was resolved: That this meeting is strongly of tlie opinion that the statutory exemption of certain industries is illogical and unsound in principle, and further, that the present proposals are not in the best interests of the farming community or of employers and workers generally. It was also resolved with regard to the preference issue that inasmuch as the inclusion of preference in the award, under the present statute it is not compulsory, but wholly within the discretion of the court. “This Federation is of the opinion that nothing in the present circumstances of New Zealand industries calls for any statutory action in this question of preference, consequently the executive protests most strongly against the passage of the Bill, which however bonafide are the intentions of its supporters, simply amounts to selling the farmers a pup.” TYPOGRAPHERS ASK FOR BILL’S WITHDRAWAL , Press Association. WELLINGTON, To-day. Further evidence from the employees’ side regarding the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act was given before the Labour Bills Committee this morning.

Charles Henry Chapman, secretary of the Wellington Typographical Union, said that he was instructed to ask for the withdrawal of the Bill on the ground that it would cause an industrial disturbance. Unions were opposed to the limitation of the choice of assessors. There had been cases where it appeared that the court had favoured one side more than the other, in the light of evidence, but the weight of opinion in the Typographical Union was in favour of its retention in its present form. With regard to piecework, witness said that he neither favoured it nor was against it, but be did say it would only work well under collective bargaining, and that individual agreements would make trouble-