I.—9a.

92

[p. j. o'regan.

recommendations. The two essential points in any dispute are the wages and the hours of labour : well, so far as these two essential points were concerned, the award of the Court was a repetition of the Board's recommendations. Exactly the same story can be told about the Plumbers' dispute. The Board made recommendations which were accepted unanimously by. the employers outside of Wellington and the bulk of them within the City of Wellington. That dispute went also to the Arbitration Court, and again the Court repeated the Board's recommendations. These illustrations, I think, show conclusively that the existing state of the law does not allow the Boards to show what conciliation can do, and until the law is altered the Boards must be practically useless; but in the circumstances I do not think any one is justified in saying that the Conciliation Boards have proved a failure. You will understand that it is always to the interests of employers to take a case to the Arbitration Court, for the reason that, while the decision of the Court is pending, the existing award remains in force, so that prolongs the advantage of the existing award. The facility that exists enabling the employers to take cases to the Court means than the Court has always more work than it can do. It is impossible for the Court to overtake the work, and the delay will eventually result in the break-down of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Those are the main points I wished to bring before the Committee. There are other ones that I have in mind, but perhaps it would facilitate matters if you were to interrogate me further. 6. You evidence must naturally be more valuable than that of others, because of the experience you have had in a neutral position: then, you think the Court duplicates the work of the Board ?—To a large extent, certainly. 7. What remedy would you suggest for that?— The remedy I would suggest is the obvious one, a- modification of the provision that enables a dispute to be taken to the Court without previous reference to the Board. 8. In other words, you would wipe out the Willis blot?— Certainly. I do not know what the House was thinking of when it adopted that section, and allowed it to go on the statute-book. 9. Would an improvement be effected by giving the Conciliation Board power to make its recommendations mandatory at once, and then to allow appeal afterwards if either party chose to apply for it?—l think, certainly, that where an agreement is arrived at between the parties, that ought immediately to have full effect as an award without reference to the Court at all. 10. Do you think that would prevent cases going before the Court?— Certainly, where an agreement takes place. I will just point out what took place in connection with the Bricklayers' case. The parties came to an agreement in conference. I have found, by the way, that since I have been Chairman of the Board, the most expeditious way of getting through the business is not to hold formal sittings and to put witnesses on their oath, but simply to go into conference in camera with the parties on each side of.the table, and take the matters in dispute seriatim. We can get the facts just as well by this means and in much less time than under the old system. In the Bricklayers' dispute we came to an agreement in conference; but, notwithstanding that, the matter had formally to go to the Court before coming into operation. In my opinion, directly the Chairman of the Board files an agreement that agreement ought to come into operation without it having to go to the Court at all. Beyond that Ido not express an opinion, but Ido say that after the recommendations of the Board have been filed at least a proportion of the employers should be required to sign a requisition before taking the recommendations to the Court. 11. The Conciliation Boards have no power to make an award ?—No. 12. And you think that if the Board had power to make an award where an agreement had been arrived at, that award should become immediately binding, and it would prevent a good deal of the business going on to the Arbitration Court? —Yes, that is perfectly coJrect. 13. Do you think the constitution of the Conciliation Board is open to any criticism, assuming that it had this power you speak of ?—I think three members of the Board would do the work of the Board just as well as five—that is my honest opinion from experience. 14. You think there is too much formality in the settlement of these disputes and too much waste of time?— Yes, I think three could do the work just as well as five. The existing statute provides for that. Five is the maximum number, including the Chairman. 15. Is that number always used?—lt is in Wellington. 16. Mr. Arnold.] Have you any idea of the proportion of cases which go on to the Court?-— My experience is that the great majority go on to the Court, Since I have been Chairman of the Board I think I am correct in saying that, with the exception of one case which was settled, every case has gone on to the Court. 17. While in cases the Court does not adopt the whole of the recommendations of the Board, is it the case that it does accept the larger proportion of the recommendations?— Yes; very often the wording in some of the clauses is not even altered. They are adopted in toto in some cases. For instance, in the Bricklayers' case we have a case in jaoint. In other cases, though the Court did make a substantial difference in its awards, nevertheless there were some of the recommendations adopted in toto. 18. Is that the case to any extent, the Court being able to get through the disputes in very much shorter time than the Board ?—Well, I am not sure that the Court does take less time than the Board. I understand that under the old regime the Board used to take three weeks in traversing the Industrial District of Wellington, while in the first dispute that I presided over—the Coachbuilders' dispute—when I saw the fixtures I expressed an opinion that it was an inordinately long time to allow for the hearing. The Clerk of Awards, however, said that was the time usually taken, and it was then too late to make any alteration. Since then no dispute has taken a fortnight, and some less. ■ 19. The point I wished to get at was this: Does the fact of the dispute having been previously heard by the Board lessen the time occupied by the Court?— Certainly it does. '..[.'- 20.' So that, in your opinion, although the recommendation, of the Board is not adopted, the time and the expense are not wasted?— The recommendations have some value, no doubt, That is