I.—9a.

100

[W. PRYOR

15. Did the case break down? —Yes, the case broke down through this man producing a document which, lam advised, was so absolutely a faked document that he killed his own case. We think that the workers know when they work overtime, and it is clearly their duty to claim it on the next pay-day, and if they do not claim it then they should have no right to do so afterwards. Section 46 : We agree with the principle of removing the onus of proof of age from the employer, but we think the matter should be made more simple still by making a written statement of age by the worker sufficient proof of age so far as the employer is concerned. The production of a certificate of age granted by an official of the Labour Department will result in considerable trouble to the officials, and to both the worker and the employer in many instances, especially where there is some little difficulty in actually proving the age; so that we think if the provision were made simply providing for a written statement of the worker of his age it might be sufficient to secure the employer, at any rate. Clause 47 :We are not expressing strong opinions one way or the other with regard to this clause. We have never asked for it, but if it be included we want it made perfectly sure, as was promised by the Minister, that ample provision shall be made to prevent these surplus funds being retained by the unions. We see in the proposals as it stands at present a grave danger, in that if the unions take full advantage of the right to compel the payment of contributions by non-union members, a fund of hundreds of thousands of pounds could be established, which might be used in many very evil ways. We also ask that there should be an addition made to subsection (1) of the clause if these provisions are included in the Bill, giving the right to employers' associations as employers' associations to demand and receive contributions. I believe that was the Minister's intention when framing the Bill. I believe he thought he was doing that, but the position with regard to the employers is different from that of the workers, and want of .acquaintance with that position has caused the mistake. The employers' associations throughout the Dominion are doing a similar class of work for the employers that the trade-unions are doing for the workers. Anyway, it is the employers' associations and Federation that have borne the heat and burden of the day for the employers, and the Federation feels that if there is any financial advantage to be gained by the operation of this clause special provision should be made for the employers' associations to take advantage of it. Our industrial unions of employers are on a different footing altogether from the industrial unions of workers. The industrial unions of employers are sometimes simply limited-liability companies, registered largely for the purpose of getting the opportunity of voting for the representatives of the Arbitration Court, and perhaps for some little advantage that might accrue to being registered under the Act when cases are being heard before the Court. Other industrial unions of employers are registered under the Act to give them a corporate standing, and are largely trading associations dealing with internal trade matters, and not doing in many cases the legislative work which industrial unions of workers do, simply on account of that being done by the employers' associations; and we ask that a clause something like this be added to subsection (1) of clause 47: "And any employers' association affiliated with the New Zealand Employers' Federation shall have the same privilege to apply to the Court for the right to demand and receive from industrial unions of employers which are not members of any employers' association in the industrial District in which such unions have their registered offices, and from employers who are bound by any award or awards of the Court and who are not members of either an industrial union of employers or of an employers association in the industrial district in which such award or awards of the Court are operative, annual or other contributions to the funds as provided for in the rules of such association as being payable bj- its members." That proposal will strike the Committee as being so fair that we do not intend to take up any time in referring to it. Section 48: The Federation objects to the onus of putting up copies of awards, but it will agree to the unions placing these up in conspicuous places. Mr. Bennett will refer to this provision, as it specially affects the building trade. The Federation also objects to section 49, with which Mr. Bennett will likewise deal. I have now to refer to some proposed amendments of the principal Act. With regard to the prevention of strikes, the Federation feels that the onus of preventing strikes should be absolutely placed on the unions. If the unions have not the power to regulate these matters, then they are not fulfilling their true functions. Because if a union does not appear formally in a strike it is well known, as in the case of the slaughtermen's strike, that it is behind it the whole time. We think, therefore, a return should be made to the underlying principle of the original Act, under which unions were held to be primarily responsible under a penalty not exceeding £500. Clause 60 of the principal Act: We ask that this be altered or amended by substituting for the word "either," in the first line, the word " any," applying it to any industrial union or industrial association or a majority of the employers cited. The position at present is a very unfortunate one for employers if they desire to refer a case direct to the Arbitration Court. The words "either party" were supposed to mean and were acted upon in the early days of the Act as applying to the union on the one hand or one of the parties to the dispute on the other hand; but owing to a decision by Mr. Justice Cooper " either party " was held to mean the collective body cited. So that the union of workers, by merely having the reference to the Court signed by its executive officers, its president or secretary, or three persons, could refer the dispute direct to the Court. It is impossible, however, for the employers to refer a dispute to the Court unless every person cited signs the reference. We have a case just to-day in connection with the drivers' dispute. There are either 238 or 283 employers cited —I cannot now remember which. It is exceedingly desirable that this dispute should be referred direct to the Arbitration Court, and yet it is utterly impossible to get these 238 or 283 persons, as the case may be, to sign the reference. We think we should not be in that position. We will agree that a majority of those cited should sign the reference if there is no industrial union of employers interested in the matter, but where there is an industrial union of employers we think we should have the same right of reference as the industrial union of workers. In breach-of-award cases we think that the initiative in all cases of alleged breach of Arbitration