I.—9a

94

p. j. o'regan.

41. You do not believe in that? —No, but it seems to be an inseparable part of the whole system. The employers have their representatives, and the others also, and each representative naturally does his best for his party. Ido not like to be personal in the matter; I look upon these facts as inevitable. 42. Do you think it would be better for the community at large if there were fewer professional agitators, whether for the employers or the employees ?—Probably it would, but I do not see how we are going to get away from it. 43. You do not approve of the professional agitator, whether employed by the one side or the other, going before the Conciliation Board, at any rate?—l believe it would be much better if we could get the principals themselves before us rather than the representatives. 44. You thoroughly approve of conciliation ?—Yes, when it is possible; but it is not always possible. 45. Is it a good thing to bring these professional agitators in where you have Conciliation Boards sitting ?—I am bound to say that, in my opinion, it would be much better that persons who are officially connected with either party should not adjudicate on disputes. 46. That is another question; it is the matter of conciliation lam dealing with. It is the question of friction I want to get at. Now, in conciliation, is it a good thing always to be rubbing the sore?—No, conciliation is designed to avoid that. 47. Then, you think the agitator would be better buried when conciliation is the object of the Board?—l am not qualified to give an answer, because Ido not like to dub any one an " agitator." I confess that I think we should get on better if we had the employers and workers themselves to deal with, without their special representatives. 48. Do you think that if the Conciliation Boards had more power you could do away with the Arbitration Court? —Now that you have opened up that question I will give you my own scheme. To begin with, I think the position of the Arbitration Court is most unfair to the Judge, for this reason: that he has to deal in the great majority of instances not with questions of law that he has been trained to, but with questions of commonplace fact, upon which every one has an opinion. I think the Arbitration Court should be reserved for cases of workers' compensation, breaches of award, and questions of law pure and simple. I think there ought to be district Boards of Arbitration, with absolute jurisdiction so far as the fixing the question of hours and wages is concerned. 49. You think there is a great, improvement in the management of the Conciliation Board in your district? —Well, I did not wish to say so, but I think everybody will admit that we take up much less time than was the case formerly. I think we take up only about a third of the time. 50. Have you heard that there was reasonable cause of complaint in the past ?—Yes, and I think the cause was this: that the Board insisted too much on formality. They put the witnesses on oath and conducted the cases as if they were a Court of law, whereas we dispense with all that now. The Chairman takes the chair in conference, picks up the claims of the union, reads them through, makes a note wherever the parties agree, and reduces the points in dispute to the minimum. Then we adjourn to another place in order to see what progress we can make there. We, generally speaking, take no more than a day in each place, and try to get an agreement between the parties ourselves. 51. The Chairman.] Can you give us some information as to the way in which the union officers manage their business ?—Yes. 52. Do you think the cases are put before you in a reasonable sort of way?—On the whole, yes. Sometimes I dare say they ask for more than they expect to get, and the other side put claims forward that they know will not be accepted; but, on the whole, I find there is a desire to do the right thing on both sides. Questions regarding holidays and hours of work are matters upon which men can honestly differ. 53. What do you think of the proposal that every officer shall be an active member of the union? —That is rather a question for a unionist to answer. Ido not feel capable of expressing an opinion about that, not being a unionist myself; but I may say that the majority of unionists do not agree with it. 54. And with regard to breaches of award, you would limit the Arbitration Court to matters of breaches of award, and compensation to workers, and so on, which could be decided by reference to certain cases?— Yes. 55. You know there is a proposal in the Bill that breaches of award should be heard by Magistrates in order to get over the difficulty?—On the whole, I think I would rather leave that matter with the Court. The Court is an industrial tribunal. 56. Clause 22 says, "Any Inspector of Awards, or any party to the award, may, in the prescribed form and manner, make application for the enforcement of the award to a Magistrate "1 — I think it would be a mistake to have two tribunals. 57. You would rather not admit the Magistrates?— Yes. 58. Should permits be granted by the Chairman of the Board, or should they be granted by a Factory Inspector?— That is a matter of opinion. As a Chairman I would be glad to get rid of the responsibility, because permits are awkward to deal with at times. On the whole, I think the present system is preferable. In Wellington the Chairman has the final decision, and in the country districts the Magistrates. I think the Inspectors have enough to do without this work. 59. Was it not the intention of the Act that permits should be given to infirm persons who were not able to keep up the pace?— Yes. 60. Is that the case in the majority of instances? —No; I think in the majority of instances they are applied for by young fellows who have not served the whole of their apprenticeship, or who, having served their time, are not yet proficient, I think the permit system should be carefully scrutinised.