I.—9a.

58

[C. H. CHAPMAN.

be reduced to 5 per cent. Although we, of course, object to the clause in its entirety, we consider that 5 per cent, would be more reasonable. Clause 31, which reads that a Magistrate may make any order as to costs, we consider would really increase the total fine incurred by the worker or by the union, and think the costs should be included in the fine. Clause 44, subclause (a), we have an objection to, because we consider the whole clause requires simplifying. So long as members are notified according to the rules of the particular union—rules which, of course, have to be passed by the Registrar —and the rules are adhered to, there is no necessity for these irritating regulations with reference to calling special meetings for the purpose of considering disputes. We object strongly to clause 45, which limits the time during which a worker can recover wages to three months, and consider that that will be very hard upon the worker who, perhaps not through his own fault, has been working for less than he should have been accprding to the award. We consider that should be struck out altogether, and that the Statute of Limitations should apply. Clause 48 we do not object to, but consider that it would be much improved if all the words after the word "award," in the last line, were deleted, so that a true copy of the award should be fixed up in every factory where the award was in operation. With regard to clause 50, we object to the Inspector of Factories being the officer to decide whether an under-rate permit should be given. In Wellington we are not troubled with the permit clause very much, but we may be in the future. We discourage the granting of permits, and have been very successful in that direction in the past; but we consider that if a permit is granted, the president and secretary of the union concerned should decide in Court whether the permit should be granted. We take very strong exception to clause 52 because, seeing that the tendency is to make these Arbitration Acts severe upon the workers, we consider that a loophole should be left to them so that they should be able to still have their trades-unions and exercise the ordinary functions of trades-unions outside the Act if it appeared to them that the Act was too harsh to be endured, Clause 53, although it does not affect our society;—which is officered entirely by members working at their profession— might, perhaps, in the near future, prove an obstacle to our union, because it is growing, and it may be found necessary for us to employ a man for the whole of his time in connection with the work of the union, which apparently, through this clause, it would he impossible to do. We consider it an unwarrantable interference with the internal management of the union. Those are the clauses which we object to, and.there are just one or two clauses with which we are in sympathy. These, we consider, could be better grafted on to the present Act and kept entirely outside of this Bill, which is so full of obnoxious clauses. We approve of the clause which states that an award by an Industrial Council —which we would prefer to be a Conciliation Board—is to take effect from the date it is given. At any rate, the intention is that, pending an appeal, the award shall be in operation. We consider that if that had been the case with the present Conciliation Boards much of the delay which has occurred would have been obviated, and appeals would not have been so lightly made to take away from the workers what the Conciliation Board had given, for a few months would have proved that the awards were not so harmful to employers as was thought. 161. What clause is that? —Clause 18, subclause (8) —"The pendency of an appeal shall not .suspend the operation of the award appealed from." 162. You approve of that? —Yes, and consider it could be made use of for the Conciliation Boards. Clause 21 is approved of, with an alteration in line 15, so that the word " shall " shall take the place of " may." That is all the evidence I wish to give. 163. Mr. Ell.] If the term " Industrial Council" were removed from the Bill and the clause providing that you shall be limited in the selection of your officers to members or past members of your union were struck out, also an alteration made with regard to the Inspector of Factories being the officer to decide whether an under-rate permit should be given—with these alterations, you would not object to the Bill?-—'So long as a loophole is left to us to go outside the Act we should not object. 164. The Chairman.] You would cancel your registration under this Act—you would be able to stand from under it?—We consider that we should have the power to stand from under it if it became too severe. 165. Mr. Ell.] You are, of course, aware of the power to pass over the Conciliation Boards and that the workers generally have been opposed to that —they say it has been used by the employers to the detriment of the workers? —I believe you will find they object principally because they have eventually to go before the Court. They go before the Conciliation Boards with the best possible wishes, but they find that, whatever they get from the Boards, the employers, if it suits them, will take them along to the Court. It is the right to appeal that is the stumbling-block. 166. Then the practical effect of your evidence is this, that you think if there should be no appeal from the Conciliation Board's recommendations they should become the award?— Yes. 167. That means the abolition of direct reference to the Court —that is what you advocate?— I am not advocating the abolition of the appeal, but I point out that this Bill operates against the Conciliation Boards. If you had the Conciliation Board without the right of appeal it would be really another Court, and I think one of the ways to remove the irritating delays that occur is to increase the number of Courts. If you give the Conciliation Board the same power as the Court, that is really increasing the number of Courts. The delays are provocative of much irritation. 168. You are aware that that is removed by a clause in this Bill?— Not entirely. The right of appeal overrides any attempt to remove delay. 169. But the award or recommendation of the Conciliation Board will hold until overruled or modified by the Court? —I agree with that clause, but the right of appeal still exists. 170. The Chairman.] Suppose this Bill passes as printed and becomes law, would you, with your present knowledge, prefer that the Bill should become law or would you rather go on with the present system?—-I would rather go on with the present system,