11

I.—9a.

W. T. YOUNG.]

word "money," in the 45th line, the words, "as a civil debt," lie inserted, so that all fines inflicted shall be recoverable through the ordinary processes of the Courts. Clause 38: This pertains exclusively to Industrial Councils, and therefore we ask that it be struck out. Clause 39, subclause (1): In the sth line, after the word " convened," we suggest that the words "by advertisement in some newspaper circulating in the industrial district in which the proposed application is to be made " be struck out, and that the words " in accordance with the rules of the union or industrial association " be inserted in lieu of same. If the proposal in the Bill were given effect to it would require the union or association initiating the proceedings to publish verbatim the resolution proposed to be submitted to the meeting, along with all other business so proposed to be submitted, therebj' giving full information to the whole of the public as to the proceedings proposed to be taken. This would result in giving the employer a huge weapon to utilise against the union in its efforts to prove a breach, and seeing that the Inspectors of Awards are not required to comply with any such requirement, but can take action on their own personal initiative, we think it only just that a similar right should be conferred on the members of a union, who are considerably more conversant with the provisions of an award or agreement, under which they work than the Inspectors. In addition to that, it will place considerable expense on the union, whilst no similar expense is placed on the Inspectors, and when you take into consideration the fact that the Court will not allow the union the full costs incurred in bringing a breach before it, it is only reasonable to ask that our suggestion be given effect to. In illustration of that I may say that in one successful case for breach of award that was taken by the Seamen's Union against W. and G. Turnbull and Co. it cost the union £7 Is. to get the case to the Court; a fine of £2 was inflicted, which was payable to the union, and 6s. was allowed as costs. The result was that the union was the loser to the extent of £4 155., or, in other words, punished to that extent for taking action to enforce the award that had cost it considerable time and money to secure. Clause 44, subclause (1), paragraph (a) : For the reasons that have already been advanced in resjiect to clause 39, we suggest that this be struck out. Clause 45 : This purports to limit the time to within three months in which a worker can successfully proceed to recover the difference between the wage specified in an award or the law and that actually paid by the employer. In this connection we would point out that wages usually become payable at the end of each week, consequently, if a worker on receiving his wages was £1 short of the award rate and he failed to take action to recover the balance within three months the clause would not only prohibit him from ever securing the amount, but it would make the employer, who had evaded the award, a present of the deficiency; this would, no doubt, lead to the employers doing all kinds of possible things to evade payment of the minimum rates prescribed in the ward. In addition to that, it must be borne in mind that the employer lias a powerful weapon to exercise against the worker, seeing that the latter is solely dependent upon the former for his means of subsistence, and the worker is usually somewhat loth to taking action against the employer in matters of this kind. If the whole of these cases are investigated, it will be found that some ninety-five per cent, of the actions have been taken after the worker has left the employ of the employer who has been guilty of paying a lesser rate than that prescribed in the award. In view of those things, which are merely a few out of many considerations, we would suggest that the time be limited to within three months after the worker lias left the employ of the employer who has been guilty of paying under-rates, and if he fails to take action to recover the full amount within that time power of recovery be vested in the Inspector of Awards, in order that the deficiency shall not be handed over to the employer, but shall be paid into the Public Account. Clause 47: This clause proposes to confer on the Arbitration Court power to order that the non-unionists shall contribute to the funds of the union, in accordance with its rules, an equal amount to that payable by an ordinary meniber, and further provides that the Court may revoke such order on the application of the employer or worker affected thereby. This may be safely regarded as the reply of the Government to the request or organized labour for unconditional compulsory preference of employment to unionists, but it is a reply that will not be indorsed by ninety-nine per cent, of the unionists of the colony, seeing that it is an attempt to abrogate a long-fought-for principle—a principle that the Watson Federal Government preferred to go out of office over rather than sacrifice, besides failing to place on the shoulders of the non-unionists equal responsibility with that of the unionists. Under this clause it would be optional for the Court to say whether a man or set of men should contribute to the funds of a union, identically the same as the Court has at the present time power to order that preference of emphyyment shall be granted to unionists. It is certainly true that one of our arguments in favour of unconditional compulsory preference has been that the nonunionist derives all the benefits of an award but does nothing to maintain the institution that has gone to considerable expense, both in time and money, to confer those benefits upon him; but whilst that is merely one point of argument in favour of preference, we have to point out that many others of equal importance are worthy of some, if not more, consideration, and perhaps one of the most important of these may be put under the heading of "'equal responsibility." According to law a union is held liable for all its actions under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and one of those liabilities is a maximum penalty of £500. If such a fine was inflicted, and the union had not sufficient assets to meet the liability, every individual member could be called upon to pay a maximum amount of £10 in order to meet it; but such is not the case with the man who is merely required to pay the usual subscription to the union in terms of clause 47 of this Bill. The whole of his responsibility would commence and end in paying a shilling or two shillings a month to the funds of the union, and it would be altogether impossible for the union to call upon him to pay his share with the unionist of any fine that might be inflicted. Further than that, it would be within the bounds of possibility under this proposal for the employer to induce men to withdraw their membership, and this could be carried on to such an extent as to result in killing the union outright, and thereby defeating the objects of the whole clause. In