27

B. 0. REVELL.]

where men have got to stand up against their employers. It does not matter whether it is a Board or a Court, they will always feel that. Ido not think you will remove, by making us an Industrial Council, the possibility of intimidation at all. I do not think you can possibly overcome it. Ido not think any amount of legislation will prevent an employer from removing a man from an industry. 148. That possibility will exist for all time under any conditions? —Yes. 149. Under the Council as proposed in the Bill, you would narrow the area of people to be victimised, would you not, because by appointing three practical men to meet three practical men on the other side there would be no necessity to call any witnesses at all?—I hardly follow your question. 150. If three practical men employed in the woollen-mills were appointed by the union to meet three employers to discuss the conditions, there would be no necessity to call any witnesses to prove what they were saying, as the practical knowledge of those two different parties would enable them to answer any questions which might be raised by one side or the other? —Yes, but I presume that this Industrial Council would have a right to call evidence. 151. Would there be any need for it? —The Chairman might require evidence to be called. 152. He might, but what I am trying to get at is this: The aim in setting up the Industrial Council is to narrow to the smallest possible compass the limit whereby men may be victimised, because if there were only three men on the Council, and there were no other witnesses, and if anything took place whereby these men lost their billets, it would be prima facie evidence that it was a question of victimising, but it would only apply to those three? —I see what you mean. There would be a possibility of only those three men getting pushed out. 153. Instead of twenty-three" as might be the case when you are calling witnesses?— How are you going to get three men, who will know they are going to be made the victims for the whole industry ? 154. But under any conditions you are going to run the risk of having men made victims if the employer is vindictive enough? —I admit that no amount of legislation will prevent an employer from getting rid of a man ; there are so many ways of doing it. . 155. This Bill does not compel a man to be a member of the union in order to be appointed to the Council: it says the union representatives shall be " persons who are or have been workers engaged in the industry " ?—All men are not like I am; most of those who lose their jobs go away —in fact, Ido not think I could get another man in Kaiapoi to undertake the, same work as I have been doing. 156. I suppose you are aware that there is a very large number of voluntary agreements being entered into now without the aid of the Arbitration Court or the Conciliation Board?— Yes, 1 dare say that can be done so long as the worker is prepared to be civil enough and to allow conditions that he otherwise would not allow. 157. If the Industrial Council were constituted as you suggest, so that a union could appoint an? person to represent it, you would come back to exactly the same position as we have now, because if men who were not practical were appointed they would call ten or twelve witnesses to prove their case? —Yes, there are difficulties there to. I maintain that the employers themselves would call witnesses from amongst the workers, and if you could not get the truth out of a witness by cross-examination —by making use of their witnesses and thus removing the blame from them, because the employers had called them—you would have to call some evidence in self-preservation. 158. You do not think the three men appointed by the union would themselves be sufficiently qualified to argue every point that might be raised, without calling outside witnesses? —In the case of the woollen-mills there really should be three different men for every department, and there are about a dozen department in the factory. 159. You could not possibly get anything like that under the existing conditions? —You can get men who have a fair elementary knowledge of the conditions who would be tangled up over the weaving-flat. The Inspector of Awards took the weavers' dispute at Ashburton, and I think he has regretted it ever since. There are so many technicalities and classical names involved in weaving that really a man wants to be a loom-tuner —that is, an expert —to know what a little alteration in the rates of pay would mean. We have a man on our executive who, I am happy to say, has sufficient backbone to take that position every now and again, and he is the representative of the weavers, and speaks for them. He is a very good man. 160. Under the Bill you could have men representing three different branches of that particular industry sitting on the Council, one representing each particular branch? —Yes. 161. That'would be a far better representation than any you could get under the existing system of Conciliation Boards, would it not?—We like the Conciliation Board on account of its independence. 162. You prefer non-practical men to give an award to having men in your own trade discuss the matter and come to an agreement?— They send down recommendations to us under the present Act, and if these are not satisfactory we take the case to the Arbitration Court. Our case did go right through. . . 163. How many cases have been settled by the Board since its inception—do you know I—l do not know. 164 Do you think 10 per cent, have been? —I would not hazard a reply. 165 You objected to clause 45. You gave one side of the question. There is another side. Supposing that a man knowing full well what the rate of wages is, goes and works at under-wages and continues to work at under-wages for two or three years, knowing that he can recover: do you approve of that?—l certainly do not. He would be fined, I suppose, in the ordinary course for a breach of the award.