I.—9a.

38

[W» T. YOUNG.

diction, and you should know as well as I do that the final judgment is, " Pay or go to gaol." Once that certificate is issued it is equal to a final judgment of the Court. 156. Before we apply for that certificate we apply in another way to get the money?— You do not- say so. 157. If the power to imprison is taken out of the Bill, do you then approve of this other clause? —Probably the committee, if you make provision for the domestic surroutidings of the worker, with regard to the reduction in the man's wages, would approve of it. We do not take up the attitude that if a man commits a breach of an award or the law he should get off soot-free. We expect an employer to obey the law. 158. There is the worker who is willing to pay and does pay, but what means have we to get at the man who will not pay ?—You have means already—there is your Appeal Court. 159. If a man commits a breach of an award and is fined by the Court for that breach, you know there is no process by which we can get that money unless through the power of distraint ?— Yes. 160. The power of distraint is only open when a man has something to distrain upon. A man who has nothing to distrain upon can defy you all the time. Do you think if you were a man who had paid your money you would be justly treated if a man like that were allowed to work alongside of you?—lf you were to provide that in the case of men receiving only £2 a week the power should not be enforceable, it might be all right. 161. No penalty has anything to do with the Wages Attachment Act, This is not a civil action at all ?—lf a man committed a breach of an award, which might be a trivial matter, and the Court inflicted a fine, that clause would be enforceable against the man in the same way as in the case of a body of men who defied the law and came out on strike, 162. But under this clause you would always be able to get at this man while he was in New Zealand ?—lt would be absolutely useless unless a man got employment. Supposing a man was fined to-morrow, and in five or six days' time left his employer, who is going to pay the fine? 163. We shall be able to follow the man up. If we say there shall be n,o power of imprisonment, would you then approve of the Department following the man up until he has paid ?—We do not object to every effort being made to recover from a man the fine inflicted upon him, but we do say that if a man is not able to pay he should not be put in prison—that some consideration should be given to his domestic surroundings, because he might be a man having a wife and large family to support, and it would be extremely hard for that man, if he was only getting £1, if his employer could deduct ss. from his wages. 164. You say you approve of the civil process, which is that where a penalty is not paid you have the power to distrain. I do not want the power to distrain, because nine-tenths of the unionists will pay the fine at once, or as soon as they possibly can. In the case of the slaughtermen, we have been taking as little as 2s. 6d. a week, although the amount of the fine was £5. It does not follow that we should claim the full 25 per cent, to be deducted. The only time we should press for it would be if we knew the man was going, say, to Australia. The employer is not allowed to take a single shilling unless he is instructed to do so by the Inspector of Awards? —But there is no provision with respect to ascertaining whether the man is in a position to pay or not. 165. If a man is getting £1 a week he is often in a position to pay?— But there are single men who have a mother and father to support. 3 66. In other words, you say that a single man who has nothing to distrain upon until he gets into work ought not to pay aiid should be allowed to go free? —I say some consideration should be given to the man's domestic surroundings. 167. Is there any consideration given to you in the Court when you are fined £1 ?—There is time given to pay the fine. 168. Are we not spreading the fine under this Bill over a period: we could not claim more than 25 per cent. If a man was willing to pay and was not wanting to clear out, if he liked to scud 2s. 6d. or ss. a week, so long as he showed his desire to pay, he would be quite safe; but the man who says "I will not pay" we would follow all over New Zealand? —Yes, that may be so; but you must remember that this is a proposed statute, and you may not always be Minister of Labour.

Tuesday, 24th September, 1907. Elijah J. Carey examined. (No. 8.) 1. The Chairman.] What is 3'our position?—l am secretary of the Cooks and Waiters' Union, and a member of the Parliamentary Committee of the Wellington Trades and Labour Council. 2. Have you seen the Bill which is now under discussion? —Yes. 3. Will you please tell us what your union thinks of it?—My union adopted the recommendations of its executive which practically indorsed the whole of the manifesto which was issued by the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades and Labour Council, and they have instructed me to give evidence on their behalf and also as a member of the Parliamentary Committee. In the first place my union objects to the abolition of the Conciliation Boards in favour of the Industrial Councils. They consider that the Board in 90 per cent, of the cases heard by it has given better recommendation's than are contained in the subsequent awards in the same cases given by the Arbitration Court. My.union realises and I believe —speaking for the Committee —that there has been a lack of conciliatory spirit shown by the employers when before the Boards, so much so that in many cases the employers have refused to attend the sittings of the Board, and the lack of the conciliatory spirit "has been shown by them when they have been asked to attend the sittings. In our own ease, when we asked for a conference with the employers, they refused to attend, and said they would fight the matter out in the Court. That was the invariable answer we received. We believe that the proposed Councils will result in poorer conditions being given than those we have been obtaining. We believe that because we think the institution of the Councils will do away