33

I.—lo

From the Sbceetaey of the Seamen's Union, Dunedin. I have had an opportunity of perusing the new Act, and it occurs to me that if clause 11 is allowed to pass as it stands the prospect of our federation establishing a branch at Wellington will be completely gone. The contents of clause 14, in my opinion, does not in any way modify the stipulations contained in section 11, which gives the Eegistrar power, in the first place, to refuse registration. The same section, I note, gives the local Conciliation Board the power of a final settlement in so far as the establishment of a branch is concerned. There are some very strong objections to be raised against either the Eegistrar or the Conciliation Board being vested with those powers. There are strong local influences, and probably prejudices, which might be brought to bear, besides which the loss of time and expense would be no small consideration in the matter. From our point of view, it is imperative that clause 11 be either struck out entirely or modified to meet the requirements of the organization desirable to establish themselves. The only suggestion I can offer in the direction of modification is to draft section 11 so that in the event of the majority of members of any organization wishing to conserve their interests at any place they could do so without the law putting unnecessary obstacles in the way. We all deplore the friction that exists in our organization, but it is there through no fault of ours, and, if the law is enacted as it stands, there is no foreseeing the injury that may accrue. It will certainly leave matters as they stand at present, and will probably resolve itself into a case of the " tail wagging the dog." I notice, further, that section 21 provides that there must be not less than four industrial unions to constitute and register an industrial association. This section will also materially interfere with our future plans of reorganization. Our requirements only necessitate having three branches—viz., Dunedin, Wellington, and Auckland. There is no other port in New Zealand where the membership would be sufficient to warrant a branch being established, and to prohibit one of the strongest, if not the strongest, and old-established unions in New Zealand, from forming an industrial association because they did not possess four branches would certainly be a rank injustice. For reasons which I need not enumerate we cannot see our way to affiliate with the Trades Council, and as it is only associated bodies who can make recommendations for the workers representative on the Arbitration Court, it would mean that the most powerful organization in the country would be disfranchised from a voice in that appointment, and otherwise left to the mercy of any set of individuals to step in and establish themselves in opposition. I have already explained verbally the nature of the injustice of the recommendations for the arbitrator being confined to industrial associations, and I think you will agree with me that each society which registers under the Act should have a voice in that important appointment. Some months ago I wrote the Hon. the Premier on this point, and was given to understand the matter would be favourably considered and embodied in the new Act. But, alas !it is not there, vide section 61. It has occurred to me that the number " four " in section 21 has been prompted by the fact of there being four principal centres in New Zealand. It does not follow, however, especially so in our case, that every organization must necessarily have a branch in each centre. Christchurch is not a seaport; consequently we do not require a branch there. Furthermore, take the coal-miners. The bulk of that industry is located on the West Coast and in Otago. They may only have two unions in existence, and although they may number thousands—which they do—-they also are debarred from forming an industrial association. Personally, I see no great difficulty in amending the Act in 'the directions indicated, and I trust we may have your hearty assistance and the co-operation of your colleagues in endeavouring to effect the necessary alterations. 10th July, 1900.

Feom the Wellington Employees' Association. lieport of Sub-committee respecting Amendments to the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The Committee, having considered the Act and amendment thereof, recommend as follows :— 1. That all provision for Conciliation Boards be struck out. 2. Failing success in the above, that provision be made for reports of proceedings and retention of all documents until case finally disposed of. 3. Costs of dispute to be borne by parties to a dispute. 4. Question re powers of a Board in clause 27, page 9—Act of 1894. (Powers of a Board to enter factories, ships, &c, to question and investigate). 5. Clause 38, subsection (1) : Quorum to be three-fourths of Board— i.e., at lease four, and not Chairman and two others as at present. 6. Clause 40, subsection (1): Delete words between " member" and "or." 7. Clause 43 : Powers of Board should be determined, as to power of demanding evidence (see letter from solicitor). 8. Clause 44: Board to report within one month of hearing evidence. It is also recommended that the opinion of the association's solicitor be obtained as to whether the Board has special power with the Court in procuring evidence of witnesses.*

* The opinion asked for waa got, and is as follows :— Deab Sib, — Wellington, 27th March, 1900. In reply to your letter, I have to state that I think section 43 gives the Board the same power as is vested in the Court. The section states that the Board shall carefully inquire into, &c, and for tbe purpose shall have all the powers of summoning witnesses. This seems to me to be almost as effectual and full a power as can be given. Yours, &c, O. D. Morpeth, Esq., Wellington. T. W. Hislop.

s—l. 10.