I.—9a.

101

W. PRYOR.]

Court awards be taken by the Inspector duly appointed under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and that all fines imposed by the Court be paid into the Consolidated Fund. We think this is a necessary provision. We are prepared to take the responsibility of putting the matter entirely into the hands of the Inspectors, believing the Department will see that justice is done to each side. We think it is wrong that a position such as occurred in Gisborne should be allowed to obtain, where the Department, after inquiry into an alleged breach on the part of an employer there, decided that the matter could be settled without going into Court. The union, not being satisfied with that position, came behind the Department and behind the employer, cited the employer for breach of award, and, unfortunately, in that case —I think the only case in which it did happen —the Arbitration Court fined the employer for a breach that had been settled and to a certain extent condoned by the responsible Department. I say we think 'such a position should not be allowed to obtain, and that a Department which realises its responsibility in the way the Labour Department does is quite fitted to take the responsibility of dealing with these matters. There is another aspect to the case, too, put very forcibly by Mr. Justice Sim in Christchurch recently, in that the right of the unions to take these breach-of-award cases to the Court themselves appeals to their cupidity, because, if successfully prosecuted, the amount of the fines goes to the union. So that whatever is done in connection with this matter it should be laid down that all Arbitration Court fines should go to the Consolidated Fund. Publication of dissents from awards: We think that whenever any member of the Court desires to dissent from a Court award —that is, to put in what may be called a minority report—such dissent should appear in the Book of Awards and be attached to the actual award. 16. Do you mean it is not recorded at the time the award is given?— Yes, at or about the time the award is given. The proposal is that the following subclause be added to section 84 of the principal Act: " Any member of the Court wishing to dissent from the majority may do so in writing, and such dissent shall be attached to the award:" It is in connection with section 84, the President delivering the decision giving the right to any particular member of the Court to record his dissent in writing, and to have such dissent attached to the award. This has been done previously—dissents have been attached —but just recently, I understand, the Department took up the position that, while it agreed to publish the dissent in the Labour Journal, it would not agree to publish the dissent in the award. Now we want these dissents, if they are of any value at all they are of value as records in connection with the awards —to be published in connection with the awards. Section 4 of the Amendment Act of 1905 empowers the President to state a case for the opinion of the Supreme Court, or to obtain a decision of the Court or Judges thereof : we ask that that section be amended by inserting the word " Court" in place of the word " President" in the first line, so that a majority of the Court might do it if they wish it, And in connection with the citation of the parties—section 3, (a), of the Act of 1905 —we desire the insertion of the word " shall " in place of the word " may " —that the Court " shall " inquire whether reasonable steps have been taken. Then, in connection with the proposal for contributions by non-members of unions. If that proposal is adopted it will be necessary to repeal the preference-to-unionists clause. It would never do to have the two proposals in the Act, and the principal Act will have to be amended in that direction. The only other thing I wish to bring under the notice of the Committee is the position in connection with the Wellington Cooks and Waiters' Industrial Agreement, which came into force as the result of recommendations by the Wellington Conciliation Board. The Federation has taken up the matter, and asks that in view of wrong information having been given by a Supreme Court official as to the expiry of the time within which a dispute could be referred to the Court of Arbitration, in consequence of which the employers were misled and prevented from referring the dispute to the Court, a clause should be inserted in the Act giving the Court the right to allow any case to be referred to it for rehearing, notwithstanding the expiry of one month, if in the Court's opinion the circumstances of the case are such as to warrant such right being granted, and that such legislation should be made -retrospective, so that it will cover the case under notice. 17. Does that finish your statement? —Yes. Sidney Kirkcaldie examined. (No. 28.) 18. The Chairman.] What are you?— Chairman of directors of Messrs. Kirkcaldie and Stains (Limited). 19. Drapers?— Yes. 20. Have you seen this Bill? —Yes. 21. Will you please tell us how it will affect you or those you represent?— The reason I have come is more particularly to give evidence in reference to the clause in the Bill which provides for referring a dispute to the Arbitration Court which has been once dealt with by the Conciliation Board practically the postion in connection with the Cooks and Waiters' Union. You have already heard that the Cooks and Waiters' Union cited various employers and created an industrial dispute, and that the employers, through information given to them at the office of the Registrar, were either one or two days late in lodging their notice of objection. The case, of course, went by default in favour of the union, and repeated applications that have been made to the' Arbitration Court, and also to the Conciliation Board to obtain a rehearing of this dispute have been ruled out of order. I understand that the Conciliation Board recognises that a mistake has been made on their part owing to the information which the employers had to give them not being available at the time the Court drew up their recommendations. So much so were they aware of this fact that they were quite prepared to receive their recommendations back from the Arbitration Court and to reconsider the whole position if granted the power to do so. Application was made, I think, to Mr. Justice Cooper, and a special case was stated for him; but he replied that