W. PRYOR.'j

99

L—9a'.

.already indicated is our desire, and. which we ask for in our proposed amendment to the principal Act, which I will deal with presently. Section 40: The Federation objects strongly to any extension of the definition of "worker." The Federation realises that in thus altering the definition of the word " worker " it means that all classes of servants will be brought under the operations of the Act. The managers of any business whatever, such as Sargood, Son, and Ewen; Kirkcaldie and Stains (Limited); the D.I.C. ; foundry foremen and managers—in fact, as I say, all classes of servants —will come under the Act, and the Federation is very strongly of opinion that it is extremely undesirable to bring under the operations of the Act those who are in responsible positions and who are really representatives of the emploj'ers. If you bring these under the operations of the Act, and so make them amenable to the awards of the Court, you practically force them into the unions, and sooner or later there is bound to be some difference of opinion between the employers and the unionists as a union, and you will have these responsible persons in the position of having to serve two masters. They will either have to side with the union and thus be unfaithful in their position as the employers' representatives, or they will have to do their duty to their employers and expose themselves to the odium attaching to scabs and blacklegs, it would also bring in shipmasters and the captains of our vessels, who are distinctly the owners' representatives, and who, we feel, should not be placed in such a position as that. It also makes it absolutely certain that domestic servants should come under the operations of an award. 9. Do they not now?—l hold that they do, but others who are looked upon as authorities do not agree with me. I was informed the other day on pretty good authority that the AttorneyGeneral himself does not agree that domestic servants come under the Act now. I should like to know how they are exempt. I think that the postion as regards the domestic servants should be faced by this Committee, and that it should be made quite clear that they do not come under the operations of this Act, and that our homes are not put under factory conditions Sections 43 and 44: These are the sections dealing with the reference of cases to the Board or Court, or to the Industrial Council or Court. We have always held that under the existing Act it required that when the ballot for referring disputes was sent down to the members of the unions complete copies of the workers' demands should be sent to each worker in the union, so that they might be able to express their views intelligently and understand exactly what they were voting upon. The decision of the Arbitration Court is against this, however, and it has been held that a simple resolution to refer the demands to the Board or Court, as the case may be, covers all the requirements of the Act at present, and we ask that in connection with the ballot and the referring of matters to the Industrial Council provision be made for full oopies of the demands and proposals being sent to members of unions with the proxy forms. And we also ask that subclause (c) of clause 41 be altered to -read that the proposal shall be deemed to be carried if and not unless the majority of the members of the union vote in favour of the proposal either personally or by proxy. It appears to us reasonable to say that if there is a legitimate grievance or grievances there should be no difficulty whatever in getting a bare majority of the union to vote in favour of referring a dispute to the Council or Court. Section 45: We agree with the principle of this section absolutety. We have always maintained, however, that one month instead of three months is a sufficient time. We feel that in the great majority of cases in connection with under-payments there is collusion between the employer and the worker. 10. Are not both equally punishable?— Yes; but if you apply that principle the workers will not agree to it. Both can be cited for the breach of award, but the conditions are different — necessarily so. What I want to say is that the Federation is not desirous of shielding the unscrupulous employer. The Federation recognises that the employer who lays himself out to beat the award is getting an unfair advantage over the respectable and fair employer. At the same time they feel that the workers should not be allowed to go on accepting less wages and then come in after great length of time or practically when it suits them. 11. An unlimited period?— Yes, an unlimited period, and make demands for the back wages. I noticed that, in reply to a deputation, the Minister practically agreed to some alteration in this clause. We think the principle should not be departed from; but if it be made that back wages are to be paid, then any back wages that are ordered to be paid should not go to the worker, but to the Consolidated Fund. In other words, you would get at the unscrupulous and would not be giving the unscrupulous worker art unfair advantage over the ordinary worker. 12. That is, if collusion is proved?— Yes, in the case or ordinary wages. With regard to overtime the position is absolutely different. A man may be working overtime or he may not be, and we have a case in connection with Mr. Fairway's business, where a man was working for him a considerable time as cook, putting in the ordinary hours so far as Mr. Fairway was aware; but when, on account of some difference Mr. Fairway was compelled to dismiss this man, he made a claim, if I remember aright, for £30 or £40 for unpaid overtime, 13. Which had been allowed to sleep?— Yes, for all that length of time. You can understand how almost impossible it is for an employer to prove that a man has not worked overtime, and that all it is necessary for an unscrupulous worker to do is to make a claim for a lengthened period and to get some one equally unscrupulous as himself to corroborate his evidence, and the unfortunate employer is absolutely in his power. 14. Do you mean to say you can give us a case iike that? —I have given one. In Mr. Fairway's case the position was this: The man was in Mr. Fairway's employ as cook for over twelve months. He made a claim for overtime for something over £40. Mr. Fairway had no evidence to actually disprove the claim, or any of the items of the claim: all he could say was that, so far as he knew, the man had not worked the overtime; and I believe that, if it had not been for the man overreaching himself, Mr. Fairway would have been mulcted in the expense.