I.—9a.

21

H. C. REVELL.

appearing before the Conciliation Board and the Arbitration Court, not one is at present employed in the woollen industry 'in Canterbury. These are hard facts, for I know that what lam saying is absolutely true. I have written to the Hon. the Minister of Labour, and the letter I wrote embodies what lam telling you to-day. We have come up here to substantiate the letter that we wrote to the Minister. We consider that if the proposal to establish Industrial Councils is carried the unions will be at a disadvantage as compared with the employers. When it comes to a matter of personal interest Jack is not as good as his master, whatever may be said to the contrary. It may be a nice thing to say that the workers of New Zealand are self-reliant and will stick out for their rights, but I regret to say it has not been our experience. We find that when one man controls another man's bread and butter, the man who is underneath is of course in the worst position. A clause was inserted in the last woollen-mills award (Book of Awards, Vol. iii, p. 501, award No. 250) as follows: "Anything not provided for in this award or any dispute that may arise in respect of anything provided for in the award and the fixing of rates of wages to be paid to any worker unable to earn the minimum rate of wages for the particular work for which he or she desires employment, shall be referred for settlement to a committee consisting of three members of the union, to be nominated by the union, and resident in the locality in which the mill is situated, and three persons to be nominated by the employer in whose mill the dispute has occurred. The fact that any member of such committee shall be in the employment of the employer shall not disqualify them for acting on such committee. If a majority of the said committee shall not be able to agree upon a decision of the particular question submitted to them, then upon such disagreement the said matter shall be submitted to the said committee and to the Chairman of the Conciliation Board for this industrial district, and shall be reconsidered and decided by a majority of the votes." Mr. Arnold: What is the date of that award ? Witness: 20th August, 1902. The Judge, in giving.the award, also made provision for an appeal to the Arbitration Court. Notice of such decision shall be given in writing to the parties to such reference. "If any party to such reference is dissatisfied with any decision given under the provisions of the last preceding clause, he shall have a right to appeal to the Arbitration Court, subject to the following conditions: He shall within seven days after he shall have received such notice of such decision, give written notice to the other parties to such reference that he appeals from such decision, and in such notice shall state the grounds of his dissatisfaction with such decision. He shall within seven days thereafter file a copy of such notice with the Clerk of Awards for the industrial district, and such Clerk shall forthwith forward a copy of such notice to the President and to each member of the Court. Until such appeal has been heard and determined by the Court the respective rights and liabilities of the parties to such reference shall be deemed to be governed by such decision. If no notice of appeal shall be given to the opposite party within such period of seven days, then such decision shall be final and conclusive." Now, our award was made, as I say, on the 31st August, 1902, and it was to have a currency of three years. That clause has allowed us to carry on without going back to the Court, and if things continue as they are at present and we are allowed to appoint our own committee •and select whom we like I do not suppose it will be necessary to go before the Court again, unless it is to obtain the right from the Court to have the award made binding on the other sections of the industry throughout the colony, outside the Canterbury District. In the officering of a union, we, as I said before, find that it is in its infancy particularly that it requires outside assistance. When a union has been formed and has obtained an award and is working under that award it is in a far more independent position than it is while battling for better terms, because, as I pointed out to the Committee, established custom always dies hard, and there is a feeling amongst the employers that a man who comes in and asks for an extra few shillings a week is a man who is in antagonism to his employer's interests, and should be suppressed. And I regret to have to say that they have followed tmt that policy of getting rid of men in the industry who are advocating better conditions for their fellow-workers, and they are doing it every day. As I said, our union was completely depleted of its intelligence within the first two years of its life. Our union, being an unaffiliated union, we have acted as non-unionists, and we are allowing the Trades Council to do a lot of the work that we could do ourselves on a good many clauses. The Chairman: Does that mean that you indorse what they say? Witness: Not necessarily. What we want to object to we will bring before you here. Regarding policy sections that are perhaps beyond a little union like ours we are prepared to leave to the House to do what is right in the interests of the workers. We are here principally to give evidence and to object to the proposed personnel of the Industrial Council. We do not say but that the Industrial Council may do very good work, and we are inclined to favour it, but we do not like to see the workers, in our industry at any rate, made to stand up against the employers after the way in which they have been treated in the past, because it is really only offering the men the opportunity of being shut out of the industry. Of course in regard to the calling of a special meeting, there is procedure provided under section 44 : " With respect to every special meeting held under section one hundred and five of the principal Act the following provisions shall apply." My union rather hopes that the House will make this Act a little simpler in manipulation from the workers' point of view. The Act is gradually becoming so tangled up with technicalities that a worker can hardly move in bringing up an industrial dispute or claim for enforcement unless he has a lawyer at his elbow, and lawyers' fees always fall very heavily on a small industrial union. We would rather see the Act made simpler than more complex. There is another little point here: "When any payment of wages has been made to and accepted by a worker at a less rate than, that which is fixed by any award or otherwise by law, no action shall be brought by the worker against his employer to recover the difference between the wages