ARBITRATION ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXX, Issue 8526, 2 September 1907, Page 5

ARBITRATION ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

APPROVED IN AUCKLAND. By Telegraph—Press Association. AUCKLAND, August 31. The opinions of representatives of labour and capital were sought today concerning the Arbitration Act Amendment Bill. Mr David Goldie, president of the Employers' Associ ation, said he thought that on the whole the amendments would give general satisfaction to employers. They were a great improvement on the e present Act. The establishment of the Industrial Councils he considered to be right. Under the amending Act the work of paid agitators would be gone. He thought that a wise course to pursue. In future employers would only have to deal with persons affected with the particular trade. Hitherto the trouble of employers had been not with the men but with "the men behind the men." Generally speaking, j he felt confident that employers would approve the new Act. The abolition of the Conciliation Boards Mr Goldie considered very desirable. In too many cases in the past agitators paid by the workmen had been sitting as members] of the boards upon the cases they had helped to work ud.

In labour circles especially the amending Bill was warmly discussed, but there did not appear to be much opposition to the amending Bill as a whole. In fact, it was more generally approved. The president of the Auckland Trades and Labour Council (Mr W. H. Brookes) said he personally did not object to the introduction of the Industrial Councils for the reason that it would be trie means of introducing expert evidence from both sides —a very great consideration to the employer, as it affected him financially, and to the worker as it affected him in minor details of his w qrk. The worker by being placed in that position would be able to thoroughly explain to the president of the court the difficulties under which workers were employed, and the employer could say whether the latter produced sufficient to warrant an increase in wages in the particular industry. Another thing was that the Industrial Council would avoid the wasting of a vast amount of the time cf the courts, for the dispute could be settled with fewer nu-n'oers employed in the case. The permission to appeal to the Arbitration Court from the finding of the Industrial Council was, he considered, a good one and such as would fall in with the views of the workers. The amendments were a great improvement on the existing Act.

OPINION IN CHRISTCHURCH.' By Telegraph—Press Association. CHRISTCHURCH, August 31. The provisions of the new Bill have naturally caused considerable perturbation in local unionist circles. Mr J. Thorn, president of the Canterbury Trades and Labour Council, who was seen by a Press reporter on the matter, made an official statement on behalf of the body of unionists represented by the council. He was careful to explain that his criticisms were based on the summary of the Bill as published in the evening papers. He had not seen a copy of the Bill, and it might be that his opinions might require modification in the light of what appeared in the full text. With regard to the proposal to abolish the Board of Conciliation and to substitute therefor an Industrial Council, Mr Thorn said there were very many objections to such a change being made. The present Board of Conciliation would be quite satisfactory so far as the unionists were concerned if its powers were extended. The recommendation of the board should be given the force of awards, subject to revision by the Arbitration Court on appeal, the recommendation, however, to operate as demands until modified on appeal. One serious objection to the Industrial Council system would be that it would have a harsh effect on the smaller unions. Such unions would have to nominate three of their best men to sit on the council and would consequently have to fall back upon men of less ability or experience to represent them before the council. He could say without hesitation that that would very seriously embarrass nearly fifty per cent, of the unions. The unions had never asked for such a change, and would be quite satisfied with the present Conciliation Boards possessing extended powers. He felt sure that if the Industrial Councils were established there would be continual appeals from their awards, for they would not have the weight that the awards of a more permanent tribunal such as the Conciliation Board would have.

The provision relating to the enforcement of awards through the Magistrate's Court, Mr Thorn continued, was one which the unions had been agitating for for some time past, and he thought it was in consequence of that agitation that the clause had been inserted. On the proposal to make unionism compulsory, Mr Thorn said that such a proposal had been discussed on several occasions at the annual conference of the Trades and Labour Councils, and had always been rejected as being detrimental to the true interests of the trade union movement. The adoption of such a proposal would mean the elimination of the present spirit of unionism, and would have a very bad effect. "It is good," added Mr Thorn, "for a union to battle for its members, and the best kind of preference to unionists is that secured by themselves." Mr Thorn also pointed out that if the proposals were carried the union would be compelled to accept anybody as members whether desirable or not, and their present right of saying who should and who should not be admitted would be taken away. The unions in fact, would be turned into mere registry offices, and they objected to that strongly. Mr Thoi n spoke very strongly on tne clause restraining a man acting as a union officer unless he has been or is engaged in the industry in connection with which the anion was established. "That clause," he said, "seems to have been framed for the purpose of squaring up the Farmers'

I Union. One of the effects of it would be undoubtedly to impair the efficiency cf a union, for there were many that depended for their vitality upon their secretaries who ought to belong to other trades, while others, such as the Farm Labourers' Union, would never have been formed had it not been for the assistance given by experienced unionists. The clause would also operate extremely harshly in another way. A man might be boycotted by employers for the prominent part he had taken in the trades union movement. Such a case had in fact occurred in Christchurch ' only lately. Several unions might then form themselves into a federation so as to give that man work by appointing him as their permanent secretary. The new clause would absolutely prevent that. "I believe," said Mr Thorn, in conclusion, "that the whole of the trades unions throughout New Zealand will be most violently oppposed to the clause. It seems to have been introduced mainly for the purpose of smashing up quite 50 per cent, of the unions in the colony, and to make it as difficult as possible for men to organise at all, and in that respect it is diametrically opposed to the professed object of the Arbitration Act itself."