ARBITRATION.

Taranaki Daily News, 7 February 1922, Page 5

ARBITRATION.

FIGHT AGAINST THE BILL. LABOR CONTINUES ATTACK. ANOTHER ALL DAY DEBATE. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. When the House resumed this afternoon no formal business was transacted, but the Speaker immediately called upon Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Avon) to continue his speech on the amendment before the House when it adjourned at midnight on Saturday—viz., that the report of the Labor Bills Committee on the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill be referred back to the committee for further consideration.

Mr. Sullivan a/gued that the committee had taken no steps to collect data by making enquiries as to the industrial conditions in other countries, and therefore their deliberations were immature and the Bill should be referred back. He also quoted an opinion expressed by Sir Robert Horne (Minister of Labor in the British Cabinet) that a feature of the settlement of industrial troubles was to be found in giving to workers a greater voice in the management of industries in which they were engaged. There was no such provision in the Bill, and therefore the Bill was unfair aiid unjust, and no Government having the welfare of the Dominion as a whole at heart would have asked the - House to consider such legislation. They had it in evidence that if this Bill goes on the Statute Book it was going to be resisted by the labor unions; but the Government appeared oblivious of the danger they were courting. EFFECT ON WAGES. Mr. J. McCombs (Lyttelton) contended that the effect of this legislation would lie to reduce wages all over the Dominion, and consequently the spending power of the people would be curtailed to such an extent that it would bring about a financial slump compared with which the fall in wool was a mere circumstance. It was well known that while the cost of living was on the increase wages were not lifted in the same proportion, but the Court was now to be instructed to reduce wages on the assumption that wages had increased in the same ratio as the cost of living, and this without any application by the employers, or the right of defence by the employees. It was not until 1918 that the Court was empowered to vary awards, so as to increase wages, and it was not until March, 1919, that the first increase was made. But now, on the first sign of a fall in the cost of living wages were to be reduced, and this on an unfair and improper basis and without the citation or hearing by either parties. Mr. F. N. Bartram (Grey Lynn) said one of the soundest reasons for referring the Bill back to the committee was that five members of the committee had said they would support its amendment, while nine members who supported the committee’s report had remained dumb during the whole debate.

Mr. W. F. Parry (Auckland Central) contrasted the treatment served out to the working class under the Bill with the assistance given to meat producers under the meat pool.

At 4.20 p.m. a division on the amendment was taken, when it was defeated by 39 votes to 20. MEASURE DEFENDED. Sir John Luke (Wellington North), in reply on the original motion, said he had not spoken when moving it because from the number of amendments of which notice had been given it was evident any comment by him at that stage would only have further delayed its passage, and that was not desirable. It had been asked who had fathered the Bill. That, he thought, mattered nothing, but what did matter was whether or not it was a good and just measure. It was wrong to say the Bill violated the principle of either conciliation or arbitration; but, on the other hand, it gave increased power to the Court, inasmuch ae the Court was now instructed in making awards to take into consideration the cost of living. The Court had to consider, not only the condition of the industry, but the condition of those engaged in it.

It was possible there would be some discontent as a result of the Bill passing, but he thought it impossible to effect such changes as the Bill proposed without causing some discontent in some quarters. He considered the railway employees had no grievance in being deprived of voting power in connection with the Arbitration Court, because they never used the Court, and for that reason they had no right, to dominate the election, of a representative on the Court. He failed to see that it was a crime on the part of the Government that they should favor small unions as against the principle of one big union. The principle of conciliation was not destroyed by the Bill.

He ridiculed the threat of industrial upheaval. The good sense of the workers would prevent an industrial upheaval under the present conditions of the Dominion. When it came to be tried it would be found the Bill would redound to the credit of the Government, and to the benefit of the country. The criticism, of the Opposition had been very fair, very generous, and of a kind the House might take to heart for all time. He moved a motion that the report of the committee and the evidence on the Bill do lie on the table.

This motion was challenged, and another division was called for, when the motion was carried by 41 votes to 21. MINISTER EXPLAINS BILL. The Hon. G. J. Anderson moved that the Bill be committed forthwith. He denied that there was any attempt in the Bill to do injury to the Arbitration Court. Those who knew him would not suspect him of doing that, because in other days he worked too hard to get that Court established. If the Government had yielded to pressure the Bill might have done injury to the Court, but the Government would not yield to pressure, with the result that they had got a good Bill. It had been asked why the Bill was brought in. It had been asked for by the Arbitration Court and by the labor unions. He quoted a paragraph from an Auckland paper in support of this statement. The Press throughout, the Dominion was almost unanimous in its praise of the Bill. He himself had been willing to meet criticism and as a result had struck out several contentious clauses. The workers of New Zealand were reasonable men, and he had had no criticism of the Bill, except from a coterie of unions belonging to the Alliance of Labor. He maintained that small unions had as much right to live and carry on as larger unions. He quoted a newspaper report to show that the Alliance of Labor was against the Arbitration Court, one of the speakers on behalf of the alliance expressing the hope that “some one w’th an axe would get ”up and kill the capitalistic concern.” It was clear then that it was the Alliance of Labor.. aud Aot

the Government, that wanted to kill the Arbitration Court.

Continuiug, the Minister said the Bill did not injuriously affect any union. What happened was that this Court in the administration of the law found it impossible to carry on, and so the Court adopted a procedure which would meet the case, and this Bill merely made that procedure law. He then explained the clause in detail, the first feature of which was that the Judge of the Arbitration Court was not to be a member of the Supreme Court Bench, but must give his whole time to the Arbitration Court. The voting of the unions for a representative on the Court was now on a democratic basis. There were 406 unions in New Zealand, and of these 36 unions dominated the elections, and it was to obviate that position that the basis of voting had been changed, to give the smaller unions a greater say in the selection. The basi.j of voting as provided in the Bill was believed to be fair to the unions all round.

Clause six provided for depriving the A.S.R.S. of voting power in connection with the Arbitration Court, and this he considered justified, because the society never used the Court, nor were they ever likely to use it. Therefore, why should they be able to override the smaller unions? They had 172 votes, and he received many complaints from the smaller unions as to the position thus created. Personally he thought the Labor representative on the Court should sit there by the votes of the unions which used the Court. The Minister was interrupted by the 5.30 adjournment. THE DIVISION LIST. Following is the division list on the motion that the report do lie on the table: For the motion (41) .—Anderson, Bitchener, Bollard, Coates, Craigie, J. S. Dickson, Dixon, Glenn, Guthrie, A. Hamilton, J. R. Hamilton, Harris, Hawken, Herries, Hockly, Hudson, Jones, Lee, Luke, Lysnar, McLeod, MeNicol, Mackenzie, Malcolm, Mander, Massey, Mitchell, Nash, A. K. Newman, E. Newman, Nosworthy, Parr, Pomare } Potter, Reed, Sir R. H. Rhodes, T. W. Rhodes, Stewart, Sykes, Wright, Against the motion (21). —Bartram, Edie.. Forbes, Fraser, Holland, Horn, Howard, Kellett, McCallum, McCombs, Masters, Parry, Poland, Savage, Sidey, R. W. Smith, S. G. Smith, Sullivan, Veitch, Wilford, Witty. Pairs.—For: Hen are, Williams and Brown. Against: Jennings, Ngata and Thacker.

When the House resumed at 7.30 p.m. Mr. Anderson continued his review of the clauses of the Bill. Clause ten, which gave the Court power to amend awards on industrial agreements with respect to wages, was intioduced at the request of the Court, which said further legislation was necessary to enable it to carry out the existing law. It made very little alteration in the law, and that alteration was in the interest of the workers. If the legislation which had been in existence since 1918 was not renewed, then those enjoying bonuses cannot have them taken away and those who do not have bonuses cannot get them.

The principle which was in existence in the past must continue; the Government had nothing to do with increasing or decreasing wages, but it must be fair to everyone. Clause tep did not destroy conciliation as alleged, because conciliation applied only when a dispute arose, and clause ten applied only when a dispute was settled and when conciliation could not apply. It had been, said the Bill prevented evidence being taken. Bn?” Howard: ‘ ,W3iy not put in the

Mr. Anderson: “I have no objection to that.”

Mr. Howard: “If you had said that before you would have saved a lot of time.” Mr. Anderson maintained that he had said so in the Labor Bills Committee, and further, the honorable gentleman knew perfectly well that no British court would a i u^B rnen *' without hearing evidence, rhe debate was carried on till a few minutes after one o’clock, when the Minister arose to reply. After briefly traversing the argument of the speakers, the House divided on the motion to go into committee, which was carried by 44 votes to 13. On the question that clause one be a clause of the Bill another division was called, when the motion was carried by 43 votes to 14. Progress was then reported and the House rose at 1.45 a.m. till 2.30 p.m. DETAILS OF THE BILL MANY AMENDMENTS MADE. WAGES AND LIVING COST. (By Wire—Parliamentary Reporter.) Wellington, Last Night. The Labor Bills Committee’s amendments to the Arbitration Amendment Bill are fairly extensive. The first of importance is the extension of the maximum number of votes which any one union may exercise in the election of a representative on the Arbitration Court from three to five.

The former clause seven, which exempted local authorities and public bodies from the operations of the principal Act, has been deleted, and for it has been substituted a stipulation that the provisions of any award or industrial agreement, or of any agreement entered into under the Labor Disputes Investigation Act, 1913, shall not apply to or affect a local authority or public body in respect of relief works carried out by a special resolution. Clause eight, which required that all persons acting as assessors in conciliation proceedings should be employed in the industry concerned and in the industrial district where the dispute occurred, has been struck out.

The most extensive alteration has been to the manner in which variations on account of the cost of living are made in existing awards or agreements. It is stated at the outset that at any time the Court shall have power to amend as it thinks fit the provisions of awards or industrial agreements in so far as they affect the rates of remuneration of workers. In so doing consideration is to be given to any increase or decrease in the cost of living since the half year ended September 30, 1920, and to economic and financial conditions affecting trade and industry in New Zealand, and all similar considerations.

By a general order such increase or decrease in the rates of remuneration may be made as the Court thinks just and equitable, having regard to a fair standard of living. When such a general order is made it is to be filed in each district, and shall then be deemed to have been incorporated in every award or agreement in force from the date of the order, or any other time to be specified. No,such order is to come into force before May next.

The Court later may make special provision for any class or section of workers if it is satisfied that by the special provisions of an award or agreement affecting< the workers, or on account of the economic conditions affecting any trade or industry, or for aev ether rsasoa, that olase or teetion

should be excluded from the operations of the general order. To this theye is added a proviso that the rates for such workers must not be made smaller than will, in the opinion of the Court, enable them to maintain a fair standard of living. .The section is declared to be in substitution for the section of the War Legislation Act, 1920, which confers upon the Court power to amend awards, and its modifications in the 1920 amendment of the Arbitration Act.

These are to remain in force until April 30 next, and are then to be repealed. Amendments to existing awards made under them will remain in force until a general order for the new law varies them. The new provisions are to remain in force until December 31, 192.3, when they are to expire, but. alterations to awards made under them are to continue for the term of the award.

The final clause of the Bill, prescribing penalties for those attempting to persuade workers to refuse to work under an award, with the object of defeating that award, or employers from employing workers with a similar object, is struck out, and no substitution for it is made.